Grier v. Peed

After being convicted of voluntary manslaughter, Barry Grier purported to file several pro se motions, despite the appointment of post-trial counsel. He subsequently brought this mandamus action against all three of the superior court judges in the circuit Appellees, seeking to compel them to enter orders regarding those motions. They recused themselves, and the designated judge dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that Grier received the relief sought and that the issues are now moot. Grier appeals pro se from this order. “Mandamus will not be granted when it is manifest that the writ would, for any cause, be nugatory or fruitless . . . .” OCGA § 9-6-26. Thus, mandamus “shall not issue when the relief requested has been granted. Cit.” Dean v. Gober , 272 Ga. 20, 21 1 524 SE2d 722 2000. Because Appellees ruled on every motion specified in Grier’s petition for mandamus, the trial court correctly dismissed the petition as moot. Baez v. Miller , 266 Ga. 211 465 SE2d 671 1996. Moreover, Appellees were not ever required to enter orders on the pro se motions, because Grier filed them at a time when he was represented by counsel. Schaefer v. State , 238 Ga. App. 594 1 519 SE2d 248 1999. Since Appellees were under no duty to rule on those motions, the extraordinary relief which Grier requested was not authorized at any time. Scott v. McLaughlin , 258 Ga. 407, 408 369 SE2d 257 1988.