266 GA 136 - Brown v. Bowers

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Kolokouris v. State (1999), Miller v. State (2002)

26 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

¶1Walter Brown appeals the denial of the filing of his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Because mandamus is not available where another remedy exists and Brown had the opportunity to raise these claims in a prior action, we affirm.

¶2Brown is incarcerated and previously brought a habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence. Michael Bowers and Richard Warren represented the Warden in opposing the habeas petition. Brown now contends that Bowers and Warren acted fraudulently in connection with the habeas action. These contentions could and should have been raised in Brown’s appeal of the denial of his habeas petition. Because Brown had another adequate legal remedy, mandamus is unavailable.1 The availability of an adequate legal remedy appeared on the face of Brown’s petition and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying its filing.2

¶3Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

¶4Hall v. Madison, 263 Ga. 73, 74 (428 SE2d 345) (1993).

¶5 See Grant v. Byrd, 265 Ga. 684 (461 SE2d 871) (1995).