habeas corpus hearing in Georgia

1971This court in Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (1) ( 169 SE2d 329 ), held that the question of credibility of testimony in a habeas corpus hearing is vested in the hearing judge.

1971This court in Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (1) ( 169 SE2d 329 ), held that the question of credibility of testimony in a habeas corpus hearing is vested in the hearing judge.

1972"In a habeas corpus hearing there is a presumption in favor of the conviction *630 or judgment unreversed, and that the decision of the court convicting the prisoner was well founded, . . . and the burden is upon the prisoner to overcome this presumption.” Gay v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 554 ( 134 SE2d 600 ); Beavers v. Smith, 227 Ga. 344, 348 ( 180 SE2d 717 ).

1972"In a habeas corpus hearing there is a presumption in favor of the conviction *630 or judgment unreversed, and that the decision of the court convicting the prisoner was well founded, . . . and the burden is upon the prisoner to overcome this presumption.” Gay v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 554 ( 134 SE2d 600 ); Beavers v. Smith, 227 Ga. 344, 348 ( 180 SE2d 717 ).

1979In Yates v. Brown, 235 Ga. 391 (2) ( 219 SE2d 729 ) (1975), this court said: 'At the habeas corpus hearing the appellant claimed that he has a right to the transcript of his trial.

1979In Yates v. Brown, 235 Ga. 391 (2) ( 219 SE2d 729 ) (1975), this court said: 'At the habeas corpus hearing the appellant claimed that he has a right to the transcript of his trial.

1978Boykin v. Alabama, supra; Roberts v. Greenway, 233 Ga. 473 ( 211 SE2d 764 ) (1975); Purvis v. Connell, 227 Ga. 764 ( 182 SE2d 892 ) (1971); Laidler v. Smith, 227 Ga. 759 ( 182 SE2d 891 ) (1971).

1978Boykin v. Alabama, supra; Roberts v. Greenway, 233 Ga. 473 ( 211 SE2d 764 ) (1975); Purvis v. Connell, 227 Ga. 764 ( 182 SE2d 892 ) (1971); Laidler v. Smith, 227 Ga. 759 ( 182 SE2d 891 ) (1971).

1978Boykin v. Alabama, supra; Roberts v. Greenway, 233 Ga. 473 ( 211 SE2d 764 ) (1975); Purvis v. Connell, 227 Ga. 764 ( 182 SE2d 892 ) (1971); Laidler v. Smith, 227 Ga. 759 ( 182 SE2d 891 ) (1971).

1978Boykin v. Alabama, supra; Roberts v. Greenway, 233 Ga. 473 ( 211 SE2d 764 ) (1975); Purvis v. Connell, 227 Ga. 764 ( 182 SE2d 892 ) (1971); Laidler v. Smith, 227 Ga. 759 ( 182 SE2d 891 ) (1971).

1974Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353 (5) ( 110 SE2d 745 ); Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (4) ( 169 SE2d 329 ); Thrash v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 585 (1) [ 193 SE2d 605 ].” Accordingly, where a commitment hearing was held, assuming but not deciding that he was not represented by counsel, the question is whether the prisoner was harmed.

1974Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353 (5) ( 110 SE2d 745 ); Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (4) ( 169 SE2d 329 ); Thrash v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 585 (1) [ 193 SE2d 605 ].” Accordingly, where a commitment hearing was held, assuming but not deciding that he was not represented by counsel, the question is whether the prisoner was harmed.

1974Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353 (5) ( 110 SE2d 745 ); Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (4) ( 169 SE2d 329 ); Thrash v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 585 (1) [ 193 SE2d 605 ].” Accordingly, where a commitment hearing was held, assuming but not deciding that he was not represented by counsel, the question is whether the prisoner was harmed.

1974Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353 (5) ( 110 SE2d 745 ); Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (4) ( 169 SE2d 329 ); Thrash v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 585 (1) [ 193 SE2d 605 ].” Accordingly, where a commitment hearing was held, assuming but not deciding that he was not represented by counsel, the question is whether the prisoner was harmed.

1964In a habeas corpus hearing there is a 'presumption in favor of the conviction or judgment unreversed, and that the decision of the court convicting the prisoner was well founded, Code § 38-114, Jones & Alford v. Tarver, 19 Ga. 279 , ■ Mathis v. Scott, 199 Ga. 743, 744 (1) ( 35 SE2d 285 ), Stanforth v. Balkcom, 217 Ga. 816 ( 125 SE2d 505 ), and the burden is upon the prisoner to overcome this presumption.

1964In a habeas corpus hearing there is a 'presumption in favor of the conviction or judgment unreversed, and that the decision of the court convicting the prisoner was well founded, Code § 38-114, Jones & Alford v. Tarver, 19 Ga. 279 , ■ Mathis v. Scott, 199 Ga. 743, 744 (1) ( 35 SE2d 285 ), Stanforth v. Balkcom, 217 Ga. 816 ( 125 SE2d 505 ), and the burden is upon the prisoner to overcome this presumption.

2024See Bales, 299 Ga. at 202 (2); Davis v. Taylor, __ Ga. App. __, __ (2) (a) ( 898 SE2d 574 ) (2024) (explaining the difference between the standards in a habeas-corpus action and change-in-custody action).

2009Accordingly, the State attempted to meet its burden by introducing, inter alia, the transcript of the plea hearing and a form which Bullard signed stating that he understood the nature of the charges against him, and understood that by pleading guilty, he was waiving, inter alia, the “right to a trial by jury and right to counsel at said trial,” the “right not to incriminate yourself,” and the “right to confront witnesses against you.” Bullard contends that such a form is insufficient to show he understood the rights he was waiving, citing as authority State v. Hemdani, 282 Ga. 511 ( 651 SE2d

2009Accordingly, the State attempted to meet its burden by introducing, inter alia, the transcript of the plea hearing and a form which Bullard signed stating that he understood the nature of the charges against him, and understood that by pleading guilty, he was waiving, inter alia, the “right to a trial by jury and right to counsel at said trial,” the “right not to incriminate yourself,” and the “right to confront witnesses against you.” Bullard contends that such a form is insufficient to show he understood the rights he was waiving, citing as authority State v. Hemdani, 282 Ga. 511 ( 651 SE2d

2002In addition, one expert testified by deposition “that an independent evaluation of [the defendant] would have been invaluable to a jury trying his case.” Id. at 528 .

2002Expert evidence was presented at the habeas corpus hearing showing, among other things, that defendant was retarded and “seriously mentally ill” and that compelling evidence showed that he “suffered from significant intellectual deficiency, major psychiatric illness and an organic brain syndrome.” Id. at 528-529 .

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

2000NOTES [1] Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 , 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992). [2] Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U.S. 957 , 113 S.Ct. 416 , 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), reh'g denied, 506 U.S. 1072 , 113 S.Ct. 1031 , 122 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993). [3] Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 , 513 S.E.2d 478 (1999). [4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [5] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra. [6] Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 , 510 S.E.2d 32 (1998). [7] See Turpin v. Bennett, supra, 584-587, 513 S.E.2d 478 , for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing. [8] See S

1986In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436 ( 306 SE2d 655 ) (1983), the petition is therefore dis missed.

1986In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436 ( 306 SE2d 655 ) (1983), the petition is therefore dis missed.

1983Harris v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 244 ( 253 SE2d 707 ) (1979). 13.

1983Harris v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 244 ( 253 SE2d 707 ) (1979). 13.

1982In People v. Vickers, 503 P2d 1313 (Cal. 1973), relied on by the sheriff, the California Supreme Court held that an absconding probationer’s probation could be summarily revoked, conditioned upon the provision of “hearings which conform to Morrissey standards” once the probationer had been taken into custody.

1980There is no merit to this argument because there is no federal or state constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding. *493 McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45 ( 214 SE2d 503 ) (1970). 4.

1980There is no merit to this argument because there is no federal or state constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding. *493 McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45 ( 214 SE2d 503 ) (1970). 4.

1979No appeal was taken therefrom but thereafter in a habeas corpus hearing based upon the decision of Kreps v. Gray, 234 Ga. 745 ( 218 SE2d 1 ), the habeas corpus court determined defendant had been denied his opportunity and right to appeal the revocation of his probation, and it was ordered that he be given an out of time appeal.

1979No appeal was taken therefrom but thereafter in a habeas corpus hearing based upon the decision of Kreps v. Gray, 234 Ga. 745 ( 218 SE2d 1 ), the habeas corpus court determined defendant had been denied his opportunity and right to appeal the revocation of his probation, and it was ordered that he be given an out of time appeal.

1979The court went on to hold in McIntyre, supra, that even if the key witness was not present to testify at the habeas corpus hearing, "any *165 failure of the respondent to produce this witness to rebut the testimony of the petitioner is merely a circumstance for consideration, and does not demand the conclusion that the petitioner was telling the truth. [Cit.]” Even if the respondent fails to file a timely answer as required by Code Ann. § 50-127 (6), this does not provide grounds for release of the prisoner.