Middlebrook v. Allen

Supreme Court of Georgia

Middlebrook v. Allen

216 S.E.2d 331, 234 Ga. 481, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1171

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 27, 1975

Docket29893

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 216 S.E.2d 331 (Middlebrook v. Allen) 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

Middlebrook v. Allen, 216 S.E.2d 331, 234 Ga. 481, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1171 (Ga. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Justice.

Lorenzo Middlebrook, presently confined in the Carroll County Correctional Institution, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the superior court of that county. The petition was denied without an evidentiary hearing. His subsequent "Motion for Rehearing” was also denied, and he appeals to this court.

Middlebrook seeks to attack a sentence for escape to be served in the future consecutive to other, present, sentences. A petitioner may properly bring an attack by habeas corpus on a future consecutive sentence (Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (88 SC 1549, 20 LE2d 426)), and the superior court was in error in basing its judgment adverse to him on the alternative ground that he sought to attack a sentence he was not presently serving.

On the merits Middlebrook cannot prevail, however, because his claim is that his 1973 sentence for escape violates his constitutional right against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, because prior to his 1973 escape trial he was subjected to various in-prison administrative punishments for escape. The right against double jeopardy protects only against being twice placed in jeopardy of criminal punishment for the same offense. *482 The Fifth Circuit has specifically ruled that this constitutional right is not offended when one is criminally convicted and sentenced for escape and is also subjected to administrative in-prison punishments for the same escape. United States v. Lepiscopo, 429 F2d 258 (5th Cir. 1970); Mullican v. United States, 252 F2d 398 (5th Cir. 1958). Accord, Hutchison v. United States, 450 F2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971). Cf. Alexander v. State, 129 Ga. App. 395 (199 SE2d 918) (criminal punishment plus license revocation). The superior court did not err in ruling without holding an evidentiary hearing that the petition, even if true, was subject to dismissal for failure to state grounds for habeas corpus relief.

Argued May 12, 1975 Decided May 27, 1975. Lorenzo Middlebrook, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hall, Justice.

Lorenzo Middlebrook, presently confined in the Carroll County Correctional Institution, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the superior court of that county. The petition was denied without an evidentiary hearing. His subsequent "Motion for Rehearing” was also denied, and he appeals to this court.

Middlebrook seeks to attack a sentence for escape to be served in the future consecutive to other, present, sentences. A petitioner may properly bring an attack by habeas corpus on a future consecutive sentence (Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (88 SC 1549, 20 LE2d 426)), and the superior court was in error in basing its judgment adverse to him on the alternative ground that he sought to attack a sentence he was not presently serving.

On the merits Middlebrook cannot prevail, however, because his claim is that his 1973 sentence for escape violates his constitutional right against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, because prior to his 1973 escape trial he was subjected to various in-prison administrative punishments for escape. The right against double jeopardy protects only against being twice placed in jeopardy of criminal punishment for the same offense. *482 The Fifth Circuit has specifically ruled that this constitutional right is not offended when one is criminally convicted and sentenced for escape and is also subjected to administrative in-prison punishments for the same escape. United States v. Lepiscopo, 429 F2d 258 (5th Cir. 1970); Mullican v. United States, 252 F2d 398 (5th Cir. 1958). Accord, Hutchison v. United States, 450 F2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971). Cf. Alexander v. State, 129 Ga. App. 395 (199 SE2d 918) (criminal punishment plus license revocation). The superior court did not err in ruling without holding an evidentiary hearing that the petition, even if true, was subject to dismissal for failure to state grounds for habeas corpus relief.

Argued May 12, 1975 Decided May 27, 1975. Lorenzo Middlebrook, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.E.2d 331, 234 Ga. 481, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlebrook-v-allen-ga-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack