GAY v. JACKSON, JUDGE

883 S.E.2d 349, 315 Ga. 464

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: January 18, 2023
• Docket: S22A1204
• Status: Published

Opinion

315 Ga. 464 FINAL COPY

S22A1204. GAY v. JACKSON et al.

PINSON, Justice.

Donovan Gay received a speeding ticket and pleaded not guilty.

While his case was still pending, he filed a pretrial petition for

habeas corpus to challenge pretrial restrictions on his driving

privileges. The habeas court dismissed the petition, and we now

affirm the dismissal. As we recently held in Phillips v. Jackson, 314

Ga. 347 (877 SE2d 185) (2022), pretrial habeas relief under OCGA §

9-14-1 (a) is not available when, as here, the proceedings under

which the petitioner’s liberty is restrained are still pending and he

can seek relief under ordinary established procedures. Because Gay

could have asked (and as far as we can tell from the record, still may

ask) the state court to remove the restrictions in question and could

seek an interlocutory appeal if the court refused, pretrial habeas

relief is not available to him at this time. 1. According to the undisputed evidence in the petition and

record, Gay received a uniform traffic citation for driving 100 miles

per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone. When he was cited, he

displayed his driver’s license in lieu of being arrested, jailed, or

ordered to post bond, as OCGA § 17-6-11 (a) (1) allowed. The citation,

which Gay signed, stated that he was ordered to appear in court to

dispose of the charges and warned that his driver’s license would be

suspended if he failed to appear.

Gay appeared in court, pleaded not guilty, and invoked his

right to a jury trial, which meant that the case would be bound over

to state court. Before the case was bound over, the municipal court

ordered Gay to surrender his driver’s license and restricted most of

his driving privileges, finding that he posed a danger to other drivers

in light of his youth (he was 20 years old) and his excessive speeding.

The municipal court characterized this action as a bond

modification. In the court’s view, although Gay was not subject to a

bond in the usual sense, he was subject to a “quasi bond” because

his license would have been suspended if he had not shown up in

2 court. The municipal court concluded that it had authority to modify

that “quasi bond.”1 Gay’s case was then bound over to state court for

adjudication.

Gay filed a petition for habeas corpus, naming as respondents

the municipal court judge and the solicitor-general of Atlanta. The

respondents filed a motion to dismiss; Gay did not respond. The

habeas court granted the motion and dismissed the petition on

several threshold grounds, including that the petition was never

properly served on the respondents, that the respondents were not

the proper parties, that the respondents were entitled to immunity,

and that a habeas petition was not the proper vehicle for Gay to

challenge the restriction on his driver’s license because other

remedies were available to him.

2. A person “restrained of his liberty,” but not “under sentence

of a state court of record,” “may seek a writ of habeas corpus to

1 In Phillips, which issued after the municipal court here relied on this

“quasi bond” theory, we noted “serious concerns” about similar actions the municipal court took in that case on the same theory. Phillips, 314 Ga. at 350. Although we make no decision on the merits of the municipal court’s actions here, we reiterate those concerns. 3 inquire into the legality of the restraint” under OCGA § 9-14-1 (a).

We have said that this provision applies to a “pretrial habeas

petition[ ]” like the one Gay filed here. Phillips, 314 Ga. at 349. We

have also pointed out that this provision includes an “important

limitation”: habeas relief is not available under OCGA § 9-14-1 (a) if

“the proceedings under which the petitioner’s liberty is restrained

are still pending undisposed of, and the ordinary established

procedure is still available to him.” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting

Williams v. Reece, 288 Ga. 46, 47 (701 SE2d 188) (2010)). In other

words, having “another adequate remedy” available in the form of

pending proceedings relieves the need to issue “this high

extraordinary writ” to challenge the legality of the restraint in

question. Id. (citation and punctuation omitted).

Gay’s petition must be dismissed for this reason. We recently

explained why in Phillips, which addressed the claims of a habeas

petitioner in the same posture as Gay. See Phillips, 314 Ga. at 347-

348. There, as here, the petitioner’s case was bound over to state

court after the municipal court imposed restrictions on his driving

4 privileges, and the petitioner sought pretrial habeas relief under

OCGA § 9-14-1 (a). See id. at 349. We affirmed the habeas court’s

dismissal, reasoning that the petitioner could have asked the state

court to remove any conditions on the petitioner’s “bond” other than

his appearance in court, see id. (citing OCGA § 17-6-18), and if the

state court declined to do so, the petitioner could have sought an

interlocutory appeal, see id. (citing OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)-(b)). Because

these potential remedies were available to the petitioner when he

sought habeas relief, and it appeared that they remained available

to him at the time of our decision, we held that pretrial habeas relief

was not available. See id. at 350.

This case is on all fours with Phillips. Gay’s case was still

pending when he filed his habeas petition, so he had the same

remedies available for challenging the restrictions on his driving

privileges.2 And as far as we can tell from the record before us, his

2 The record shows that Gay filed his habeas petition before his case was

officially bound over to state court. But either the municipal court or the state court had the authority to modify Gay’s “bond.” See OCGA § 17-6-18 (describing availability of bond modification); Georgia Municipal Court Rule

5 case remains pending in state court, and these remedies remain

available to Gay. So, as in Phillips, pretrial habeas relief is not

available to Gay at this time. See Phillips, 314 Ga. at 350; Williams,

288 Ga. at 47.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Decided January 18, 2023.

Habeas corpus. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Cox.

T. Henry Adeleye, Amanda K. Johns, for appellant.

Hermise Pierre, Michael C. Wynter, Gary E. Jackson, Raines F.

Carter, for appellee.

18.4 (“The municipal court has the authority to amend any bail previously authorized by the municipal court under the provisions of OCGA § 17-6-18.”). So there is no question that the “ordinary established procedure” for seeking relief from his bond was available to Gay. See Phillips, 314 Ga. at 349. 6