Harper v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles

Supreme Court of Georgia

Harper v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles

390 S.E.2d 592, 260 Ga. 132

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 25, 1990

DocketS90A0624

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 390 S.E.2d 592 (Harper v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harper v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 390 S.E.2d 592, 260 Ga. 132 (Ga. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Petitioner filed this action for mandamus against the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board), and its Chairman, seeking an order requiring them to recompute his sentences resulting from his convictions as an habitual violator. The petitioner maintained that the respondents had erred in calculating the time he was required to serve, and that he was entitled to be released from custody. At the time of the hearing of this case the petitioner had been released from cus[133]*133tody. The trial court dismissed the petition for mandamus and this appeal followed.

Decided April 25, 1990. Jimmie Louis Harper, pro se. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Neal B. Childers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

The trial court correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus. The duty to award credit for time served lies with the Department of Corrections, not the Board of Pardons & Paroles. Casario v. State, 169 Ga. 515 (313 SE2d 772) (1984); OCGA § 17-10-12. Therefore neither the Board nor its Chairman is a party against which mandamus will lie in this case.

Further mandamus lies against an official to require the performance of a clear legal duty. The writ of mandamus does not reach the office, but is a personal action against the official. Crow v. McCallum, 215 Ga. 692 (113 SE2d 203) (1960); OCGA § 9-6-20.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per curiam.

Petitioner filed this action for mandamus against the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board), and its Chairman, seeking an order requiring them to recompute his sentences resulting from his convictions as an habitual violator. The petitioner maintained that the respondents had erred in calculating the time he was required to serve, and that he was entitled to be released from custody. At the time of the hearing of this case the petitioner had been released from cus[133]*133tody. The trial court dismissed the petition for mandamus and this appeal followed.

Decided April 25, 1990. Jimmie Louis Harper, pro se. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Neal B. Childers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

The trial court correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus. The duty to award credit for time served lies with the Department of Corrections, not the Board of Pardons & Paroles. Casario v. State, 169 Ga. 515 (313 SE2d 772) (1984); OCGA § 17-10-12. Therefore neither the Board nor its Chairman is a party against which mandamus will lie in this case.

Further mandamus lies against an official to require the performance of a clear legal duty. The writ of mandamus does not reach the office, but is a personal action against the official. Crow v. McCallum, 215 Ga. 692 (113 SE2d 203) (1960); OCGA § 9-6-20.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 S.E.2d 592, 260 Ga. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-state-board-of-pardons-paroles-ga-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack