Lead Opinion
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, District Attorney for the Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit, filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition against the DeKalb County Magistrate Court
The dismissal of charges by a magistrate judge at a preliminary hearing is not subject to challenge by the State.
Any attempt to recast Fleming’s action as one for a declaratory judgment is belied by the substance of the pleadings. Rather than merely seeking guidance regarding the proper evidentiary standards for preliminary hearings, Fleming sought an order prohibiting DCMC from applying its hearsay evidentiary rule and mandating that the interpretation of the rule set forth by Fleming be used. This is not a declaratory judgment action. Compare OCGA § 9-4-1 (purpose of Declaratory Judgment Act is “to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations”) with OCGA § 9-6-20 (mandamus may issue to compel performance) and OCGA § 9-6-40 (prohibition may issue to restrain subordinate court from exceeding its jurisdiction).
The cases cited by the dissent in support of its argument that the trial court properly considered Fleming’s claims are not controlling. The State was not a party in either Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Atlanta,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
We note that mandamus is a personal action against a public officer, not against the office, Hall v. Nelson,
Although Fleming’s petition set forth facts pertaining to a May 2007 case in which charges were dismissed by DCMC because only hearsay evidence was presented at the preliminary hearing, no specific dismissal was challenged. We note that mandamus will not lie to compel a general course of conduct or the performance of continuous duties. Dean v. Gober,
For OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) to apply, the order must be a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief and the ultimate disposition of an individual claim in a multiple claim action. Keck v. Harris,
The record indicates that the State filed a petition for writ of certiorari related to this action in the superior court as part of a “three-pronged attack” against the alleged DCMC policy; it appears that the petition was dismissed.
That the matter is before this Court on an appeal ultimately brought by a party other than the State does not require a different result.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
For the reasons that follow, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the appellee’s claims for mandamus and prohibition relief must fail, but I believe that, properly construed, the appellee asserted an appropriate claim for declaratory judgment relief and that the trial court properly granted that relief. Accordingly, I dissent to the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s judgment.
In substance, the appellee’s complaint alleged that the DeKalb County Magistrate Court, as a whole, has adopted an evidentiary policy that hearsay evidence is illegal evidence and is thus alone an insufficient basis on which to find probable cause and bind a case over to superior court, and the appellee sought relief from uncertainty as to her future obligations under that policy. In construing pleadings, it is a fundamental rule that substance, not nomenclature, controls.
Because mandamus and prohibition are personal actions against a public officer and not against an office and because the appellee’s complaint asserted a claim against the magistrate court as a whole, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the appellee’s claims for mandamus and prohibition relief cannot stand.
The purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act is “ ‘to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.’ ”
The superior court is authorized to enter a declaratory judgment upon petition therefor in cases of actual controversy [under OCGA § 9-4-2 (a)], and “to determine and settle by declaration any justiciable controversy of a civil nature where it appears to the court that the ends of justice require that such should be made for the guidance and protection of the petitioner, and when such a declaration will relieve the petitioner from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to his rights, status, and legal relations.”10
Because the appellee’s complaint showed that she faced uncertainty and insecurity as to her ability to rely on hearsay evidence alone as a basis on which to establish probable cause in order to have a case bound over to an appropriate court, I believe that the appellee properly asserted a claim for declaratory relief.
Moreover, the record shows that the trial court properly found that the magistrate court has a policy that precludes the binding of cases over to the appropriate court based on hearsay evidence alone on the ground that hearsay evidence is always illegal evidence. Such an evidentiary policy is contrary to longstanding evidentiary rules that hearsay
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in declaring the appellants’ evidentiary policy to be invalid. I therefore dissent to the majority opinion.
State v. Smith,
Block v. Voyager Life Ins. Co.,
Hall v. Nelson,
Baker v. City of Marietta,
Baker,
Gresham, v. Edwards,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The majority holds that neither a writ of mandamus nor prohibition is available where the District Attorney is attacking an alleged policy of the magistrate court judges in DeKalb County that, when applicable, automatically results in the dismissal of charges at a preliminary hearing. Remarkably, however, the only appellate decision on which the majority relies for this holding dismissed an appeal by the State from an order addressing an ordinary ruling in a specific criminal prosecution. Howard v. Lane,
The reason why a writ of prohibition was not available to the State in Howard was the attempted circumvention of the appellate procedure for obtaining review of a criminal ruling and not the mere fact that the State had no right of direct appeal from the type of ruling at issue. Indeed, the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal is actually a prerequisite to the viability of an action for mandamus or prohibition. Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Atlanta,
Furthermore, after reviewing the merits of this case, it is my opinion that the trial court was authorized to find that the magistrate court “has a policy or practice wherein probable cause to bind over a defendant to superior court cannot be established solely on hearsay evidence” and that “at a preliminary hearing a magistrate judge does not have the discretion to refuse to admit hearsay evidence or to require evidence in addition to hearsay evidence, if such hearsay evidence by itself establishes probable cause ... .” See Gresham v. Edwards,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
Because I believe that mandamus was an appropriate remedy in this case, I respectfully dissent.
Here, the trial court found as a matter of fact that magistrate court judges had adopted a court-wide policy dictating that “probable cause to bind over a defendant to superior court cannot be established solely on hearsay evidence.” This policy apparently was enacted to bind magistrate judges on all criminal cases coming before that court, thereby preventing these magistrate judges from exercising their discretion, as required by law, to determine whether hearsay evidence established probable cause at a preliminary hearing. Because the rule at the crux of this case was universally applicable to all cases, it cannot be maintained that the District Attorney was merely attempting to circumvent the requirements of OCGA § 5-7-1. Here, the District Attorney is asserting the rights of the State against the magistrate court judges, themselves. This is not the type of situation encompassed by OCGA § 5-7-1.
It is, however, the type of situation which should be subject to a mandamus action.
Generally, mandamus is not an available remedy to require a judicial officer to perform a judicial function in a manner different from the way the judicial officer has performed it because mandamus is not available if there is another specific legal remedy (OCGA § 9-6-20), and a right of judicial review of the act of a judicial officer is a legal remedy. [Cit.]
Zepp v. Brannen,