Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

CHISHOLM v. COFER.

PER CURIAM.

Chisholm presented a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and affidavit of indigency, asking the superior court to compel a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant against an individual for false swearing in a notary public application. He appeals from an order denying the filing of the writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim for relief. See OCGA § 9-15-2 (d).

A magistrate has discretion to determine whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of an arrest warrant based on his own knowledge or on the information of others given to him under oath. OCGA § 17-4-40. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public officer to perform a discretionary act, unless a gross abuse of such discretion has been shown. OCGA § 9-6-21 (a); Jersawitz v. Bodiford, 258 Ga. 829 ( 377 S.E.2d 502) (1989); Clear Vision CATV v. Mayor of Jesup, 225 Ga. 757 ( 171 S.E.2d 505) (1969). The magistrate court exercised its discretion in refusing to issue the arrest warrant. No abuse of that discretion has been shown. Since the writ of mandamus does not lie, it was not error to deny its filing.

Cofer's motion for frivolous appeal penalty is denied.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

PER CURIAM.

DECIDED OCTOBER 3, 1994.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CHISHOLM v. COFER
(Oct 3, 1994)