Brown v. Crawford
289 Ga. 722
Ga.2011Background
- Freeman and Crawford filed pre-trial petitions for writs of habeas corpus; one petition denied and appealed, the other granted and appealed.
- The two cases were consolidated for appeal to address whether final orders in pre-trial habeas actions are directly appealable post-amendment to OCGA § 42-12-3(1).
- PLRA-inspired constraints in OCGA § 42-12-8 require discretionary review via OCGA § 5-6-35 for prisoner appeals; habeas petitions were exempted originally but amended in 1999 to require discretionary review for habeas appeals as well.
- Georgia Supreme Court overruled several post-amendment decisions that allowed direct appeals from pre-trial habeas orders, aligning with the current statutory framework.
- The court held that no direct appeal lies under current law for the pre-trial habeas orders at issue; discretionary review is required, and the appeals are dismissed for failure to obtain it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-trial habeas orders are directly appealable post-1999 | Freeman and Crawford argued direct appeal is permitted. | Respondents argued discretionary review is required. | Direct appeal not allowed; discretionary review required. |
| Whether OCGA 42-12-8 applies to habeas appeals by prisoners | Barber line allows direct appeal for pre-trial habeas petitions. | Amended statute requires discretionary appeal for habeas as well. | Discretionary review required; appeals dismissed for lack of it. |
| Whether Ray v. Barber controls non-prisoner appellants | Ray v. Barber should extend discretionary review to non-prisoner appellants. | Ray v. Barber applies to non-prisoners; discretionary procedure is still required. | Ray v. Barber applies; discretionary review required for non-prisoner appeal. |
| Effect of the 1999 statutory amendments on Nichols-era direct-appeal cases | Nichols framework still governs direct appeals for pre-trial habeas orders. | Amendments supersede Nichols; direct appeals are no longer appropriate. | Nichols-based direct appeals abrogated for habeas petitions; discretionary review required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Nichols, 270 Ga. 550 (1999) (holding that final order in pre-trial habeas is directly appealable)
- Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856 (2001) (prisoner appeals subject to discretionary review under PLRA)
- Barber, State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646 (2010) (interpretation of 'action' and discretionary review implications)
- Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489 (1997) (prisoner litigation controls and procedural burdens)
- Jackson v. Bittick, 286 Ga. 364 (2010) (statutory interpretation of PLRA provisions and direct-appeal scope)