Abebe v. Georgia
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Georgia?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Georgia. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
A habeas petitioner who has completely served her misdemeanor sentence “must demonstrate that [s]he is suffering adverse collateral consequences flowing from [her] conviction. Seble Abebe appealed the denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus after she was convicted of DUI. She was sentenced to 12 months’ probation. She was denied relief because she failed to show adverse collateral consequences. The Georgia Supreme Court determined the superior court correctly determined Abebe was not entitled to relief.
Download PDF
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 22, 2018 S18A0894. ABEBE v. THE STATE. BETHEL, Justice. Seble Wongel Abebe appeals from the denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On March 18, 2015, she pled guilty in the Municipal Court for the City of Decatur to driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and was sentenced, inter alia, to 12 months of probation.1 On September 11, 2015, Abebe filed her habeas petition in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, alleging that her plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. On November 21, 2016, the superior court denied habeas relief, concluding that Abebe’s sentence had already expired and that she had failed to make a showing of adverse collateral consequences. The record also indicates that Abebe’s sentence included a requirement that she pay a fine, participate in 40 hours of community service, submit to a drug evaluation, and participate in risk reduction services. Her driver’s license was also suspended. Abebe has not alleged that she has yet to complete any of these requirements or that she remains under any restriction or probation stemming from her conviction. 1 A habeas petitioner who has completely served her misdemeanor sentence “must demonstrate that [s]he is suffering adverse collateral consequences flowing from [her] conviction. This is so because if adverse collateral consequences continue to plague the affected party, the matter has not become moot.” Turner v. State, 284 Ga. 494, 495 (1) (668 SE2d 692) (2008) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, Nazario v. State, 293 Ga. 480, 489 (2) (d) (746 SE2d 109) (2013). Cf. Atkins v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 330, 333 (2) (216 SE2d 89) (1975) (unnecessary for habeas petitioner to allege adverse collateral consequences of a felony conviction). Conversely, if the petitioner is released from any confinement imposed after filing her habeas petition and there are no adverse collateral consequences flowing from her misdemeanor conviction, the matter becomes moot. See Baker v. State, 240 Ga. 431, 432 (241 SE2d 187) (1978) (applying the doctrine of adverse collateral consequences in the context of an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction); see generally Johnson v. Ricketts, 233 Ga. 438 (211 SE2d 732) (1975); Raheem v. State, 333 Ga. App. 821, 821 n. 2 (777 SE2d 496) (2015). Adverse collateral consequences must be demonstrated in the record. See Turner, 284 Ga. at 496 (1) (citing In the Interest of I.S., 278 Ga. 859, 862 (607 SE2d 546) (2005)). See also Baker, 240 Ga. at 432. In this case, Abebe has 2 not alleged that she suffers any adverse collateral consequences stemming from her misdemeanor conviction that have continued after the expiration of her sentence. See Turner, 284 Ga. at 496, 497 (1); Baker, 240 Ga. at 432. Accordingly, this matter is moot, and the superior court correctly determined that Abebe was not entitled to habeas relief.2 Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. To the extent our decision in Baker suggests that a habeas petitioner who has not demonstrated in the record that he or she suffers collateral consequences stemming from the conviction may instead demonstrate that he or she attempted to either expedite the habeas proceeding or prepare a record from the trial court, we disapprove such a reading. Those efforts are not a substitute for evidence in the record demonstrating that the petitioner suffers from collateral consequences. See Turner, 284 Ga. at 495-96 (1). 2 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
