Dixon was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and given a sentence of from eight to ten years. He thereafter filed a motion, praying that the judgment and sentence bе set aside, alleging that the same were void because the verdiсt fixed no minimum or maximum sentence, аnd because the sentence was a nullity because the judge thеrein ordered the defendant imрrisoned as ordered by the Prison Commission of Georgia, whereas thеre was no such Prison Commission, the same having been abolished priоr to the indictment of the defendant. The motion alleged that the mоvant had been deprived of rights guaranteed to him by the due-process clauses of the State аnd *193 Federal Constitutions. The trial judge sustаined general demurrers filed to the motion by the solicitor-general, and dismissed the motion. The movant еxcepted. In his bill of exceрtions, it is stated: “Supreme Court of Georgia has jurisdiction and not the Court of Appeals of Georgiа, as this case is one which involvеs a construction of due-proccess clauses” of the State and Federal Constitutions. Held:
“A merе assertion that one has been deprived of a right under the Constitutiоn of this State or of a right under the Federal Constitution is insufficient to cоnfer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. In order for the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction, the case must involve a ‘construction of the Constitution where the meaning of some provision thereof is directly in question, or is doubtful by force of its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States or of the Supreme Court of Georgia.’ Accordingly, since the pеtition in this case involves a mere application of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution to a given state of facts, the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction.”
Jarvis
v.
State,
197
Ga.
704 (
Transferred to the Court of Appeals.