Mungin v. St. Lawrence

The state's alleged failure to comply with the defendant's statutory speedy trial demand did not constitute an exception to the rule that a defendant cannot predicate pretrial habeas relied upon a claim, which he can raise in his pending prosecution.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Charles Mungin is the defendant in a pending criminal action. Acting pro se, he filed a pre-trial habeas corpus petition. After reviewing the pleading, the habeas court found that it failed to allege any viable ground for relief. Accordingly, the habeas court denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the issues Mungin raised therein could be asserted in the pending criminal prosecution. Mungin appeals from the habeas court’s dismissal order. “When the habeas court is able to determine from the face of the petition that it is without merit . . . it is appropriate to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Cits.” Mitchell v. Forrester , 247 Ga. 622, 623 278 SE2d 368 1981. Here, the habeas corpus court noted that all of the issues Mungin raised in his petition relate to matters that he can assert in the context of his pending prosecution. “Where the proceedings under which the petitioner is detained are still pending undisposed of, and the ordinary established procedure is still available to him, the orderly procedure by trial and appeal should not be interfered with by a writ of habeas corpus cits., there being another adequate remedy cits., and no necessity for issuance of this high extraordinary writ cit.” Jackson v. Lowry , 170 Ga. 755, 756-757 154 SE 228 1930. Mungin contends that this principle does not apply here, because one of the grounds upon which he sought habeas corpus relief was that he stands acquitted because of the State’s failure to comply with his demand for a speedy trial under OCGA § 17-7-170.

Mungin v. St. Lawrence

The state's alleged failure to comply with the defendant's statutory speedy trial demand did not constitute an exception to the rule that a defendant cannot predicate pretrial habeas relied upon a claim, which he can raise in his pending prosecution.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report