Case Name: SULLIVAN v. CLARK, warden
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1923-11-13
Citations: 156 Ga. 706
Docket Number: No. 3963
Parties: SULLIVAN v. CLARK, warden.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 706–711

Head Matter:
SULLIVAN v. CLARK, warden.
No. 3963.
November 13, 1923.
Habeas corpus. Before Judge E. D. Thomas. Fulton superior court. July 3, 1923.
On June 25, 1923, Ered Sullivan presented a petition to a judge of the superior court of Eulton County, alleging that he is "illegally restrained of his liberty,” by A. A. Clark Jr., warden of Eulton County convicts, "without process of law,” and that the respondent “ is subject to the jurisdiction of ” the court. Following these allegations was a prayer for the State’s writ of habeas corpus. On presentation of the petition the judge issued an order commanding the respondent to produce the body of the petitioner and state the cause of detention at a stated time and place, to be disposed of as the law directs. In his answer to the petition the respondent admitted custody of the petitioner, but denied that his detention was illegal, and alleged that respondent’s custody of petitioner began on July 30, 1922, and that he “ is being held on a sentence from the criminal court of Atlanta, wherein he is sentenced to serve a period of 10 months on the public works'of Fulton County, to be computed from the date of his deliver}', and a sentence from the superior court of Fulton County, wherein it is ordered that he pay a fine of $100.00 and serve 12 months on the public works of Fulton County, and six months in jail, it being provided that said sentence is to follow the one above mentioned, sentence imposed by the criminal court of Atlanta, it being further provided that upon payment of the fine the jail sentence will be served outside the confines of the jail.” At the hearing the petitioner introduced copies of certain records showing a petition to the superior court of Fulton County to set. aside the sentence of that court referred to in the answer of the respondent, and the verdict on which the sentence was based; also other portions of the record in the case so commenced by the jietitioner, including a final judgment adverse to the petitioner. The petition contained various grounds of attack upon the validity of the verdict and sentence. Immediately following the signature of the judge to the final judgment was a certificate of the judge in the form of a writ of error to the Court of Appeals, and an acknowledgment of service by the solicitor-general; but neither the certificate nor anything that preceded it purported to assign error on the final judgment. 'After introduction of the above-mentioned documentary evidence the petitioner testified substantially as follows: Petitioner was sent to the chain-gang, July 20, 1922, from the criminal court of Atlanta, and remained there until August 3, when he was brought to trial in the superior court under another charge. After his trial he was returned to the chain-gang on the 5th or 6th, and has remained there ever since. His behavior in the chain-gang was good, and on that account he was entitled to a reduction of four days out of each month from his sentence, which had not been, allowed him. The combined sentences of the criminal court of Atlanta' and of the superior court amounted to twenty-two months, and witness was under the impression “ that the sentences were to run together, . . concurrently, both at the same time.” Witness’s total service amounts to “eleven months and eight days,” and if given credit for good behavior witness would be entitled to a discharge, as his time would have been out in June. That is to say: “Under a twelve-months sentence, provided I got time off for good behavior, I would have to serve ten months and twelve days, and I have made that much time since August 5, 1922. A little more than that much time.” ■ The petitioner did not submit any evidence after introduction of his own testimony. The respondent then introduced certified copies of two sentences of court, the first duly signed by the judge of the criminal court of Atlanta, and the second duly signed by the judge of another circuit presiding in the superior court of Fulton County, Georgia, which sentences, omitting the signatures of the judges, were as follows:

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.
1. It lias been held: "If a defendant be found guilty of more than one offense, and the imprisonment under one sentence is to commence at the expiration of the other, the sentences must so state; else the second punishment will be executed concurrently, and the defendant will be discharged on the expiration of. the longer term. Fortson v. Elbert County, 117 Ga. 149 (43 S. E. 492)." Shamblin v. Penn, 148 Ga. 592 (97 S. E. 520). See also Simmons v. Georgia Iron & Coal Co., 117 Ga. 305 (8) (43 S. E. 780, 61 L. R. A. 739) ; 16 C. J. 1306, § 3082; 8 R. C. L. 242, § 242. It has also been held that the principle stated above " has no application in a ease where the different sentences were imposed by different courts." Hightower v. Hollis, 121 Ga. 159 (48 S. E. 969). See also 16 C. J. 1306, § 3082.
2. The case under consideration involves two sentences imposed on the same person by different courts for different offenses. As the defendant was engaged in serving the first of the sentences at the time the second was imposed upon him, the recital in the second that it should follow the first, while not essential, was not improper; and the admission in evidence of that part of the language in the second sentence stating that it was to follow the first was not erroneous.
3. As the two sentences imposed by two different courts were to be served consecutively, the second sentence, after all proper allowances of reduction of time for good behavior, as provided in the Penal Code (1910), § 1179, had not expired at the hearing of the application for habeas corpus; and the judge did not err in remanding the petitioner to the custody of the officer.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Beck, P. J., and Gilbert, J., concur specially.
" No. 56118 Due out 4-20-23. . Return.
_ The State 1 ' Charge, Misdemeanor. Wsky. vs. In the Criminal Court of Atlanta, Fulton Fred Sullivan County, Dec. Term, 1921.
" Whereupon it is considered by the court that the defendant, Fred Sullivan, be put to work and labor on the public works of the County of Fulton, or otherwise, as the commissioners of said county may direct, for the space of ten (10) months, to be computed from the date of his delivery upon such public works. By the Court: This 19th day of Dec. 1921." •
"No. 19252
The State 1 Charge, Vio. Pro. Law. vs. I In the Superior Court of Fulton County. Fred Sullivan J July Term, 1922.
"Whereupon it is considered by the court that the defendant, Fred Sullivan, pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and all costs of this prosecution, be put to work and labor on the public works of the County of Fulton, or otherwise, as the commissioners of said county maj'- direct, for the space of twelve (12) months, to be computed from the date of his delivery, and six months in jail; on payment of fine and cost the jail sentence will be served outside confines of jail, to follow No. 56118 City Criminal Court. By the Court: This 3rd day of Aug. 1922."
When the sentence from the superior court dated August 3, 1922, was offered in evidence, the petitioner objected to its admission, and moved to reject that part thereof which reads, "to follow No. 56118 City Criminal Court," on the ground that the same " is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent, in that" the respondent sought in his answer to justify the detention of petitioner on the basis of a sentence imposed by the judge of "the criminal court of Atlanta;" and that such evidence " is immaterial, on the ground that it did not appear in the proceedings . . that there had been any sentence imposed by ' No. 56118 in the City Criminal Court.'" The evidence was admitted over the objections stated. No further evidence being offered, a judgment was rendered ordering "that the petitioner, Fred Sullivan, be and he is hereby remanded to the custody of said A. A. Clark Jr., warden of Fulton County, Georgia, and there to be held until he has completed the sentence imposed upon him by this court of Aug. 3, 1922, the same being No. 19252, and in said sentence it being provided that the sentence of this court is to follow the sentence No. 56118 of the Criminal Court of Atlanta." The petitioner excepted to the judgment, assigning error on the grounds: (a) That the judgment was contrary to the evidence. (&) That it was contrary to the law, because the judgment so rendered "amended and changed the sentence originally imposed without notice to plaintiff, . . and was . . without due process of law." Error was also assigned upon the ruling admitting evidence over objections as indicated.
Jackson & Echols and C. E. Moore, for plaintiff.
John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens, and B. H. Pharr, for defendant.