Kearse v. Paulk

Carley, Justice.

After appellant had been indicted for several offenses, but prior to his trial, he filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus. The habeas court dismissed appellant’s petition and he appeals.

“ ‘A writ of habeas corpus looks only to the lawfulness of the present confinement. It does not deal with the lawfulness of a possible future imprisonment. . . . [Cit.]’ [Cits.]” Mullennix v. Balkcom, 213 Ga. 490 (99 SE2d 832) (1957), overruled on other grounds, Hollis v. Allen, 235 Ga. 211 (219 SE2d 108) (1975). In his pro se petition, appellant did not purport to state a claim for habeas…