Stephens v. Mills

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stephens v. Mills

140 S.E.2d 857, 220 Ga. 619, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 575

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 4, 1965·No. 22779·Published

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The substance of this habeas corpus action is that the prisoner is being restrained of his liberty because the indictment under which he was convicted fails to charge him with a crime, the same charging him with a mere conspiracy to commit robbery. The indictment adequately alleges a crime of robbery, and since the sole basis for the action is that the indictment failed to charge a crime, the court correctly refused to release the prisoner. See Camp v. State, 3 Ga. 417; Lipham v. State, 125 Ga. 52 (53 SE 817, 114 ASR 181, 5 AC 66); Brusnighan v. State, 86 Ga. App. 340 (71 SE2d 698).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The substance of this habeas corpus action is that the prisoner is being restrained of his liberty because the indictment under which he was convicted fails to charge him with a crime, the same charging him with a mere conspiracy to commit robbery. The indictment adequately alleges a crime of robbery, and since the sole basis for the action is that the indictment failed to charge a crime, the court correctly refused to release the prisoner. See Camp v. State, 3 Ga. 417; Lipham v. State, 125 Ga. 52 (53 SE 817, 114 ASR 181, 5 AC 66); Brusnighan v. State, 86 Ga. App. 340 (71 SE2d 698).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Stephens v. Mills, 140 S.E.2d 857, 220 Ga. 619, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 575 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

140 S.E.2d 857 (Stephens v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related