Smith v. Brown

Supreme Court of Georgia

Smith v. Brown

686 S.E.2d 760, 286 Ga. 137, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3330, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 630

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 19, 2009

DocketS09A1653, S09A1654

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 686 S.E.2d 760 (Smith v. Brown) 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

Smith v. Brown, 686 S.E.2d 760, 286 Ga. 137, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3330, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 630 (Ga. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

NAHMIAS, Justice.

Arlanda Smith is the defendant in a pending criminal prosecution. He filed this pre-trial habeas corpus petition raising numerous issues regarding that prosecution, including a claim that the trial court presiding over his prosecution should be recused. The habeas court denied relief on the ground that, because he could assert these issues in his pending criminal case, habeas relief was unavailable to Smith. In these two appeals, Smith contends the habeas court erred. On the contrary, the habeas court properly ruled that Smith could assert all of the claims he raises in his pending prosecution and that “pre-trial habeas corpus relief cannot be predicated” on those claims. Mungin v. St. Lawrence, 281 Ga. 671, 672 (641 SE2d 541) (2007); Perera v. Miller, 283 Ga. 583 (662 SE2d 544) (2008). Accordingly, we affirm the habeas court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

NAHMIAS, Justice.

Arlanda Smith is the defendant in a pending criminal prosecution. He filed this pre-trial habeas corpus petition raising numerous issues regarding that prosecution, including a claim that the trial court presiding over his prosecution should be recused. The habeas court denied relief on the ground that, because he could assert these issues in his pending criminal case, habeas relief was unavailable to Smith. In these two appeals, Smith contends the habeas court erred. On the contrary, the habeas court properly ruled that Smith could assert all of the claims he raises in his pending prosecution and that “pre-trial habeas corpus relief cannot be predicated” on those claims. Mungin v. St. Lawrence, 281 Ga. 671, 672 (641 SE2d 541) (2007); Perera v. Miller, 283 Ga. 583 (662 SE2d 544) (2008). Accordingly, we affirm the habeas court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 S.E.2d 760, 286 Ga. 137, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3330, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-brown-ga-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack