Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Saleem v. Forrester

Saleem v. Forrester

424 S.E.2d 623, 262 Ga. 693, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 161, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 53
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 8, 1993·No. S92A1318·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Sears-Collins, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of numerous offenses in Dooly County Superior Court in 1983. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal the next year. Saleem v. State, 169 Ga. App. 952 (315 SE2d 487) (1984).

In the present case, the appellant asks us to review the Dooly County Superior Court’s denial of the appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus. In that petition, the appellant challenged the legality of the life sentences imposed following his convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury.

A petition for writ of mandamus is not the proper vehicle for obtaining post-appeal review of sentences imposed by a state court. “Mandamus is a remedy designed to compel the doing of ministerial acts[,]” Speedway Grading Corp. v. Barrow, 258 Ga. 693, 695 (373 SE2d 205) (1988), and will not lie when the act complained of involves the exercise of judicial discretion, such as sentencing (Anderson v. McMurray, 217 Ga. 145 (121 SE2d 22) (1961); see also Guhl v. Crow, 237 Ga. 699 (229 SE2d 475) (1976)). In addition, “[m]andamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel the undoing of acts already *694 done. . . .” Speedway Grading, 258 Ga. at 695.

Decided January 8, 1993 Reconsideration denied February 5, 1993. Mustafa Nasir Saleem, pro se. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Neal B. Childers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Moreover, “for persons whose liberty is being restrained by vir tue of a sentence imposed against them by a state court of record,’ OCGA § 9-14-41, the exclusive means for seeking review of that sen tence, after review by the sentence review panel and after direct ap peal, is through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the pro cedures set forth in OCGA § 9-14-40 et seq.; OCGA § 9-14-41 Accordingly, we find that the issues raised by the appellant are proce durally barred, and the order and judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Clarke, C. J., Hunt, P. J., Benham Fletcher, Sears-Collins and Hunstein, JJ., concur.

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

Saleem v. Forrester, 424 S.E.2d 623, 262 Ga. 693, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 161, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 53 (Ga. 1993).

424 S.E.2d 623 (Saleem v. Forrester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

AUBREY SANDERS v. JEFFREY L. FOSTER
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
Prince v. State
793 S.E.2d 38 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)
Humphrey v. Owens
715 S.E.2d 119 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011)
State v. Blue
696 S.E.2d 692 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Guice v. State
639 S.E.2d 636 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Hughes v. State
615 S.E.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Johnson v. State
612 S.E.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Jones v. State
604 S.E.2d 483 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004)
Moore v. State
583 S.E.2d 25 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2003)
State v. Smith
573 S.E.2d 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)
Daker v. Ray
563 S.E.2d 429 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)
Casey Bridges v. Curtis Johnson
284 F.3d 1201 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Chadwick v. State
448 S.E.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)