Moore v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Moore v. Caldwell

189 S.E.2d 402, 229 Ga. 129, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 527

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1972

Docket27145

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 S.E.2d 402 (Moore v. Caldwell) 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

Moore v. Caldwell, 189 S.E.2d 402, 229 Ga. 129, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 527 (Ga. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Grice, Presiding Justice.

The appellant, who pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to ten years confinement, contends in his petition that with all earned good-time and extra good-time he would have completed such sentence prior to the filing of his petition.

He alleged that the Administrative Disciplinary Committee of the prison found that he was guilty of being in an unauthorized place and of sodomy, and consequently his [130]*130earned statutory good-time and extra good-time were forfeited pursuant to Code Ann. § 77-320 which provides in material part that . . all statutory and extra good-time allowance earned up to the time of the offense shall be forfeited for . . . sodomy . .

Submitted April 10, 1972 Decided May 3, 1972. Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, W. Hensell Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

He also alleged that the forfeiture proceedings were in violation of the due process provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions in that he was denied numerous stated rights and procedures.

Upon the habeas corpus hearing the evidence was conflicting in some particulars.

. However, the habeas corpus court found that the petitioner was given notice of the charges against him; that upon the hearing they were read to him; that he was given an opportunity to ask about them but made no effort to call any witnesses; and that after hearing testimony of a custodial officer and that of appellant the Administrative Disciplinary Committee was authorized to find that he had committed sodomy; and that the foregoing procedure was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and met the requirements of due process of law. We agree.

Therefore the judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the respondent warden was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Grice, Presiding Justice.

The appellant, who pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to ten years confinement, contends in his petition that with all earned good-time and extra good-time he would have completed such sentence prior to the filing of his petition.

He alleged that the Administrative Disciplinary Committee of the prison found that he was guilty of being in an unauthorized place and of sodomy, and consequently his [130]*130earned statutory good-time and extra good-time were forfeited pursuant to Code Ann. § 77-320 which provides in material part that . . all statutory and extra good-time allowance earned up to the time of the offense shall be forfeited for . . . sodomy . .

Submitted April 10, 1972 Decided May 3, 1972. Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, W. Hensell Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

He also alleged that the forfeiture proceedings were in violation of the due process provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions in that he was denied numerous stated rights and procedures.

Upon the habeas corpus hearing the evidence was conflicting in some particulars.

. However, the habeas corpus court found that the petitioner was given notice of the charges against him; that upon the hearing they were read to him; that he was given an opportunity to ask about them but made no effort to call any witnesses; and that after hearing testimony of a custodial officer and that of appellant the Administrative Disciplinary Committee was authorized to find that he had committed sodomy; and that the foregoing procedure was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and met the requirements of due process of law. We agree.

Therefore the judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the respondent warden was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E.2d 402, 229 Ga. 129, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-caldwell-ga-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack