From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorrow v. Vickery

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 8, 1971
228 Ga. 191 (Ga. 1971)

Summary

holding appellant's release from confinement on parole rendered case moot because “it is fundamental that habeas corpus is available to test the legality of present confinement only and if the applicant is no longer incarcerated there is nothing for the courts to adjudicate.”

Summary of this case from Cline v. Mirandy

Opinion

26725.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 14, 1971.

DECIDED OCTOBER 8, 1971.

Habeas corpus. Hart Superior Court. Before Judge Williford.

Guy B. Scott, Jr., for appellant.

Clete D. Johnson, District Attorney, Joe Skelton, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, for appellee.


On April 19, 1971, the appellant was sentenced to serve one year in prison upon a charge of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants. He filed the present application for a writ of habeas corpus on June 30, 1971, and the order refusing to sanction the same was filed on the same day. The appeal was filed in this court on July 23, 1971, and was assigned for argument on September 14, 1971. It being suggested to this court that the appellant had been released from confinement on parole, we cited the appellant to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as being moot, since it is fundamental that habeas corpus is available to test the legality of present confinement only ( Cobb v. Dutton, 222 Ga. 11 (2) ( 148 S.E.2d 399); Dutton v. Knight, 223 Ga. 140 (2) ( 153 S.E.2d 714)), and if the applicant is no longer incarcerated there is nothing for the courts to adjudicate. No cause having been shown and the time allowed having expired, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. All the Justices concur.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 14, 1971 — DECIDED OCTOBER 8, 1971.


Summaries of

Sorrow v. Vickery

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 8, 1971
228 Ga. 191 (Ga. 1971)

holding appellant's release from confinement on parole rendered case moot because “it is fundamental that habeas corpus is available to test the legality of present confinement only and if the applicant is no longer incarcerated there is nothing for the courts to adjudicate.”

Summary of this case from Cline v. Mirandy
Case details for

Sorrow v. Vickery

Case Details

Full title:SORROW v. VICKERY

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Oct 8, 1971

Citations

228 Ga. 191 (Ga. 1971)
184 S.E.2d 462

Citing Cases

Bostick v. Weber

However, an almost equal number of states have held the opposite, that a parolee is not restrained of his or…

Shepherd v. Dampier

A motion to dismiss the appeal was made by the respondent on the basis that the appellant is no longer in…