Court Opinion

ID: 9610038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:35:51.541138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:56.114808
License: Public Domain

Sears, Justice.
This Court granted petitioner William Shane Hicks’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the habeas court’s order denying the filing of Hicks’s petition for habeas corpus relief. Because the habeas court incorrectly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to decide the petition and that the petition did not assert valid grounds for habeas relief, we reverse and remand.
Petitioner is presently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta serving a 63-month sentence for bank robbery, imposed in May 1996 by the United States District Court. Petitioner also is under a probationary sentence from Catoosa County for a 1992 guilty plea to a separate robbery. Petitioner’s 1992 conviction was used to enhance his federal sentence.
Proceeding pro se, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County, alleging that the District Court’s use of his 1992 Catoosa County conviction to enhance his federal sentence was improper, because the 1992 conviction occurred due to the ineffective assistance of counsel and due to an involuntary plea based *359upon the erroneous advice of counsel. Petitioner named as respondents to his petition the prison warden and the State. The habeas court entered an order denying filing of the habeas petition under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), stating that because petitioner is a federal prisoner seeking to sue federal prison authorities, his petition was without any justiciable issue of law or fact from which the requested relief could be granted. In its order denying filing, the habeas court failed to “correctly inform [ ] . . . [petitioner] of the proper procedure for obtaining appellate review of its order.”1 Therefore, this matter is distinguished from Fullwood v. Sivley.2
OCGA § 9-15-2 (d) permits a trial court to deny the filing of a pro se complaint after determining that on its face the pleading completely lacks justiciable issues of law or fact. This Court has previously held, however, that this Code section does not apply to petitions for habeas corpus relief.3 Moreover, the merits of a habeas corpus petition may only be addressed by a court after the petition has been filed.4 Thus, the habeas court erred in this matter by reviewing the merits of petitioners’ pleading before filing and determining that under section 9-15-2 (d), the merits were void of justiciable issues, thereby warranting dismissal.
Furthermore, the habeas court incorrectly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to afford petitioner the requested relief. When an inmate is incarcerated in a federal prison located in Georgia, venue for any habeas corpus action filed by that inmate against the State is in the superior court for the county in which he is being held by federal authorities.5 Because in this matter the petitioner sought to file his action against federal prison authorities and the State, the superior court’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction was erroneous.
Finally, to the extent that the habeas court might have concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the petition because the issues raised therein were not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding, our precedent shows otherwise. Properly raised allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are routinely addressed by habeas courts in this State, and present a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief.6
Accordingly the habeas court’s order denying filing of petitioner Hicks’s petition for habeas corpus relief is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the habeas court for further proceedings consistent *360with this opinion.7

Judgment reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur, except Carley and Hines, JJ, who dissent.

 Fullwood v. Sivley, 271 Ga. 248, 249 (517 SE2d 511) (1999).

 Id.

 Giles v. Ford, 258 Ga. 245 (368 SE2d 318) (1988).

 Id.

 OCGA § 9-14-43; see Smith v. State, 234 Ga. 390, 392 (216 SE2d 111) (1975).

 See Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661 (409 SE2d 507) (1991).

 On remand and any appeal taken therefrom, this matter will be subject to the applicable procedural requirements of Fullwood v. Sivley, supra.