In 1986, James Albert Rickett pled guilty in Ware County to a charge of trafficking in cocaine, and the trial court imposed a 25-year sentence. In 1998, a federal court in Florida sentenced him to a 180-month prison term for various drug offenses. In 2001, he filed an unverified pro se habeas corpus petition in Ware County attacking his 1986 guilty plea, even though he was being held in a Florida correctional institution on the federal drug charges. Although the State filed an answer asserting that Rickett’s claim lacked merit, the habeas court never set a hearing. In 2002, Rickett sought mandamus to compel that court to conduct a hearing and to issue a ruling on his petition. Acting sua sponte, the trial court denied mandamus relief, noting that a hearing would be held in the habeas proceeding when Rickett is present in Georgia. He applied for discretionary appeal from that ruling, and we granted the application. 1. The State contends that Rickett does not have a valid mandamus claim, because one judge of the Superior Court of Ware County cannot compel another judge of that court to perform an official duty. There is authority for that proposition. Hamby v. Pope , 229 Ga. 339 191 SE2d 53 1972; Shreve v. Pendleton , 129 Ga. 374 58 SE 880 1907. However, the viability of those cases ended with Brown v. Johnson , 251 Ga. 436 306 SE2d 655 1983, wherein we held that it is permissible for one superior court judge to hear and determine a mandamus claim brought against another judge of that court. Accordingly, mandamus is an available remedy in this case.
2. Rickett contends that the trial court erred because the Superior Court of Ware County has jurisdiction over the habeas proceeding notwithstanding the fact that he is incarcerated in Florida. Craig v. State , 234 Ga. 398 216 SE2d 296 1975. However, the jurisdiction of the habeas court has never been questioned. The mandamus petition asserted a right to a hearing on the habeas claim, and the trial court refused to hold a hearing because of Rickett’s current imprisonment in Florida. Thus, the dispositive issue is his procedural right to a hearing in the Georgia habeas court, not the underlying power of that court to conduct a hearing and to dispose of his claim.
