Curtis Jackson was arrested, released on bond, and indicted for theft by receiving stolen property. When he failed to appear for trial, the trial court issued a bench warrant and bond forfeiture. Jackson was arrested and returned to jail. He subsequently filed a motion to lift the bench warrant and reinstate the bond, which the trial court denied.
Less than three weeks before the rescheduled trial, Jackson filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, primarily alleging that he was unlawfully confined under the bench warrant. At trial, a jury found Jackson guilty of two counts of theft by receiving stolen property, and the trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentences.
Thereafter, the habeas court dismissed the habeas petition on the ground that “the allegations contained in the petition are now moot.” Continuing to act pro se in the habeas case, Jackson filed a timely notice of direct appeal. Two weeks later, he filed an application for certificate of probable cause in the habeas court, which that court purported to deny.
1. The habeas court’s order dismissing the petition was directly appealable. Where, as here, “a prisoner files a pre-trial habeas
*365
corpus petition while in custody in lieu of bond, the discretionary procedures of [OCGA] § 9-14-52 are replaced by the direct appeal route offered by OCGA § 9-14-22. [Cits.]”
Smith v. Nichols,
2. Jackson’s claims that he was illegally incarcerated under a bench warrant based upon an indictment are moot because he “has been tried, convicted, and . . . sentenced . . . and . . . would not derive any benefit from the adjudication” which he seeks.
Colston v. Youmans,
Accordingly, “the habeas court correctly dismissed [Jackson’s] petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. [Cit.]” Mungin v. St. Lawrence, supra at 672.
Judgment affirmed.