Perera v. Miller

Supreme Court of Georgia

Perera v. Miller

662 S.E.2d 544, 283 Ga. 583, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1841, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 445

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 2, 2008

DocketS08A0897

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 662 S.E.2d 544 (Perera v. Miller) 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

Perera v. Miller, 662 S.E.2d 544, 283 Ga. 583, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1841, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 445 (Ga. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Emily Perera, is the defendant in a pending murder case in Douglas County. She filed this pre-trial habeas action, contending that she was receiving ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. However, because Perera may raise these issues in the pending criminal action, she may not raise them pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1 For this reason, the habeas court did not err in dismissing Perera’s petition without an evidentiary hearing. 2

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

1

Mungin v. St. Lawrence, 281 Ga. 671 (641 SE2d 541) (2007); Kearse v. Paulk, 264 Ga. 509, 509-510 (448 SE2d 369) (1994).

2

See Mungin, 281 Ga. 671 (where habeas court is able to determine from face of the petition that it is without merit, it may dismiss without a hearing).

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

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Emily Perera, is the defendant in a pending murder case in Douglas County. She filed this pre-trial habeas action, contending that she was receiving ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. However, because Perera may raise these issues in the pending criminal action, she may not raise them pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1 For this reason, the habeas court did not err in dismissing Perera’s petition without an evidentiary hearing. 2

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

1

Mungin v. St. Lawrence, 281 Ga. 671 (641 SE2d 541) (2007); Kearse v. Paulk, 264 Ga. 509, 509-510 (448 SE2d 369) (1994).

2

See Mungin, 281 Ga. 671 (where habeas court is able to determine from face of the petition that it is without merit, it may dismiss without a hearing).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 S.E.2d 544, 283 Ga. 583, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1841, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perera-v-miller-ga-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack