Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-14-49 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 9-14-49 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 9-14-49

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 14. Habeas Corpus, 9-14-1 through 9-14-53.

ARTICLE 2 PROCEDURE FOR PERSONS UNDER SENTENCE OF STATE COURT OF RECORD

9-14-49. Findings of fact and conclusions of law.

After reviewing the pleadings and evidence offered at the trial of the case, the judge of the superior court hearing the case shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based. The findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be recorded as part of the record of the case.

(Code 1933, § 50-127, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 835, § 3.)

Cross references.

- Ruling on petition, Ga. Unif. S. Ct. R. 44.12.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

This section simply requires the trial judge to set out the judge's findings of fact, showing a consideration of the facts of the case and a determination in relation to these facts. Day v. Mills, 224 Ga. 741, 164 S.E.2d 828 (1968).

This section does not require the trial court at a habeas hearing to set forth each fact upon which the court bases the court's finding, as these facts appear in the record, and no useful purpose would be accomplished by having the trial judge repeat them. Day v. Mills, 224 Ga. 741, 164 S.E.2d 828 (1968).

This section does not require trial court at a habeas corpus hearing to set forth each fact upon which the court bases its finding. Brown v. Holland, 228 Ga. 628, 187 S.E.2d 246 (1972), overruled on other grounds, Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975).

Remand for finding not authorized.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49 did not authorize the superior court in a habeas corpus proceeding to remand the proceeding to another superior court for a finding as to whether the defendant voluntarily made a statement to a prison official which was used in cross-examination at the defendant's trial. Newsome v. Black, 258 Ga. 787, 374 S.E.2d 733 (1989).

Remand of a habeas proceeding to another superior court was improper.

- Trial court was not authorized to remand a habeas proceeding to another superior court, or to order the filing of an extraordinary motion for new trial in another superior court; a final order transferring the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims to another county was void ab initio as an unauthorized exercise of authority. Martin v. Astudillo, 280 Ga. 295, 627 S.E.2d 34 (2006).

Ruling that no rights were violated and that trial was fair held sufficient.

- Trial court makes sufficient findings of fact by expressly ruling as a matter of fact that none of the petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated by the arresting officers, and that the petitioner has had a fair and legal trial. Brown v. Holland, 228 Ga. 628, 187 S.E.2d 246 (1972), overruled on other grounds, Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975).

Adoption of prior ruling held adequate.

- When the trial court referred in habeas corpus proceeding to the records admitted in the prior proceeding, and at least by implication, adopted the court's prior ruling on dismissal of the criminal appeal, the trial court complied with this section. McAuliffe v. Rutledge, 231 Ga. 1, 200 S.E.2d 100 (1973).

Cursory oral ruling embodying finding that no rights violated.

- Oral ruling that was cursory and not in compliance with the exact language of this section, but nonetheless embodied a finding that none of the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated, did not constitute reversible error. Bailey v. Baker, 232 Ga. 84, 205 S.E.2d 278 (1974).

Judge's finding not disturbed if supported by any evidence.

- On trial of a habeas corpus case, the judge is the trier of both the law and the facts, and if there is any evidence to support the finding of the trial court, even though there is evidence to the contrary, such finding will not be disturbed. Williams v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 453, 192 S.E.2d 378 (1972).

Insufficient order denying relief.

- Judgment denying an appellant's request for habeas relief was vacated and the case was remanded because the order denying relief contained no indication of the facts or law on which the trial court based the court's decision and therefore failed to meet the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49. Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 327, 667 S.E.2d 375 (2008), overruled on other grounds, Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 728 S.E.2d 617 (2012).

Cited in White v. Gnann, 225 Ga. 398, 169 S.E.2d 301 (1969); Stynchcombe v. Walden, 226 Ga. 63, 172 S.E.2d 402 (1970); Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 174 S.E.2d 893 (1970); Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804, 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001); Greer v. Thompson, 281 Ga. 419, 637 S.E.2d 698 (2006); In re Baucom, 297 Ga. App. 661, 678 S.E.2d 118 (2009); Bennett v. Etheridge, 302 Ga. 33, 805 S.E.2d 38 (2017).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus and Postconviction Remedies, § 163.

C.J.S.

- 39A C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 368 et seq.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49

Total Results: 20  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Cook v. State, 870 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 114 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 471

Copy

ALLEN v. DAKER (& Vice Versa), 858 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. 2021).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 17, 2021 | 311 Ga. 485

...not appear to be stated in the record. 21 consider those grounds based on the evidence already presented, and then issue thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law as to those grounds as required by OCGA § 9-14-49,8 after which either party, if unsatisfied, could appeal....
...appellate counsel and whether the determination of his indigency status was improperly delegated to and denied by the CDO — all of which the court summarily concluded were “without merit.”9 The order then included new sections discussing these two claims and 8 OCGA § 9-14-49 says in pertinent part, “After reviewing the pleadings and evidence offered at the trial of the case, the judge of the superior court hearing the case shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is...
...argues — and Daker 44 agrees — such a remand is inappropriate in any event because a habeas court is not authorized to remand a case to the trial court to make findings of fact or conclusions of law. See OCGA § 9-14-49 (“After reviewing the pleadings and evidence offered at the trial of the [habeas] case, the judge of the superior court hearing the case shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based.”); Newsome v. Black, 258 Ga. 787, 788 (374 SE2d 733) (1989) (“[OCGA § 9-14-49] does not authorize the superior court in a habeas corpus proceeding to remand the proceeding to another superior court.”)....
Copy

Greer v. Thompson, 637 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 20, 2006 | 281 Ga. 419, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 3587

...its grant of relief on the jury communications issues. Therefore, the judgment of the habeas court is reversed and the case is remanded for resolution of the remaining issues and the entry of an order on the remaining issues which complies with OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Johnson v. Roberts, 694 S.E.2d 661 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 19, 2010 | 287 Ga. 112, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1431

...We decline Johnson's request to resolve this question de novo *664 on a cold record. Instead, we vacate and remand this case to the habeas court with instruction to enter a new order consistent with this opinion and containing the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. See OCGA § 9-14-49; Thomas v....
Copy

Thomas v. State, 667 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 22, 2008 | 284 Ga. 327, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2959

...ence he received in a subsequent federal prosecution. On April 23, 2007, the habeas court issued an order denying appellant's request for habeas relief. The court's order was devoid of any statement of facts or conclusions of law as required by OCGA § 9-14-49....
...t be dismissed as untimely if petitioner was not "explicitly" informed of the "appropriate appellate procedure"). [1] Accordingly, this procedural defect is not fatal to appellant's appeal. Capote v. Ray, supra, 276 Ga. at 2, 577 S.E.2d 755. 2. OCGA § 9-14-49 requires habeas courts to "make written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based." If a habeas court enters an order denying relief, but fails to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law, the case must be vacated and remanded with instruction to the habeas court to enter a new order that complies with OCGA § 9-14-49. Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804(3), 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001). The order at issue here contains no indication of the facts or law upon which the habeas court based its decision. Because the order does not meet the requisites of OCGA § 9-14-49, it is vacated and the case is remanded to the habeas court for issuance of an order compliant with OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Redmon v. Johnson, 302 Ga. 763 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 16, 2018 | 809 S.E.2d 468

...All the Justices concur, except Grant, J., not participating. The statutory requirements that habeas hearings must be transcribed, see OCGA § 9-14-50, that the habeas court’s order must include written findings of fact and conclusions of law as part of the record, see OCGA § 9-14-49, and that the record (including the transcript, if designated) must be sent to this Court all serve the purpose of enabling us “to consider fully the request for a certificate” authorizing an appeal, OCGA § 9-14-52 (b). Appeals in G...
Copy

Stewart v. Milliken, 593 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 1, 2004 | 277 Ga. 659, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 767

...lings, or orders" is a comprehensive phrase. The habeas court's findings and conclusions "affect the proceedings below," because they are a necessary component of any habeas case. See Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804, 805(3), 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001); OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Dozier v. Watson, 827 S.E.2d 276 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 15, 2019 | 305 Ga. 629

...that ruling. Therefore, we vacate the habeas court's judgment and remand this case to the habeas court with instruction to enter a new order consistent with this opinion and containing the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. See OCGA § 9-14-49 ; Thomas v....
Copy

Martin v. Astudillo, 280 Ga. 295 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 27, 2006 | 627 S.E.2d 34, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 588

...enefit of a fair and impartial tribunal as it has in any other proceeding. In meeting that responsibility, the habeas court was required to review the pleadings and the evidence, and then to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Garibay v. Terry, 299 Ga. 701 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 3, 2016 | 791 S.E.2d 806

...914(315SE2d434) (1984) (entry of default judgment for liquidated damages not subject to five-year rule). Here, the trial court announced at the evidentiary hearing that it was denying Garibay’s habeas petition; all that remained was for the habeas court to enter a written final order in accordance with OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

State v. Houston, 312 Ga. 853 (Ga. 2021).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 23, 2021

...argument about who bore the burden. Although the habeas court’s order is brief, it contains written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based, and the State does not argue that the order fails to comply with OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Caldwell, Warden v. Edenfield; & Vice Versa, 890 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. 2023).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2023 | 316 Ga. 751

...Edenfield’s impoverished upbringing; physical abuse that Edenfield suffered; George Edenfield’s propensity to violence; difficulties suffered by Edenfield because of his family’s move; and evidence related to Edenfield’s incest conviction. See OCGA § 9-14-49 (requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law)....
...sufficiently presented to the habeas court to warrant adjudication at all. If they were not, the habeas court may dispose of them accordingly. But, if they are to be adjudicated, they will require findings of fact and conclusions of law specific to each claim. OCGA § 9-14-49....
...Coupled with that discussion by the habeas court regarding the guilt/innocence phase and the findings of fact and conclusions of law made there, we conclude that this otherwise-summary disposition by the habeas court regarding this claim as it concerns the sentencing phase was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of OCGA § 9-14-49 for findings of fact and conclusions of law and was sufficient to support our analysis here....
Copy

Bennett v. Etheridge, 302 Ga. 33 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 13, 2017 | 805 S.E.2d 38

...She raises no issue with regard to the arguments presented in her motion or to the underlying order on the petition for habeas corpus relief. Therefore, the absence of written findings of fact and conclusions of law in that order is not in issue here. See OCGA § 9-14-49.
Copy

Baden v. Ochoa-Hernandez, 297 Ga. 37 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 20, 2015 | 771 S.E.2d 898

...[Appellee] shall be remanded to Gwinnett County for further proceedings in accordance with this order.” The warden appeals. Because the order granting habeas relief does not contain written findings of facts and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based, it fails to meet the requirements of OCGA § 9-14-49. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas court is vacated and the case remanded for issuance of an order in compliance with OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Ward, Comm'r v. Carlton, 868 S.E.2d 194 (Ga. 2022).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 19, 2022 | 313 Ga. 333

...24 the court’s grant of relief on ground 1, the court should address any remaining grounds as well, making sure to provide the required “written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based.” OCGA § 9-14-49. Judgment reversed in part and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur. Decided January 19, 2022 — Reconsideration dismissed March 8, 2022. Habeas corpus....
Copy

Dozier v. Watson, 305 Ga. 629 (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 15, 2019

...appellate review of that ruling. Therefore, we vacate the habeas court’s judgment and remand this case to the habeas court with instruction to enter a new order consistent with this opinion and containing the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. See OCGA § 9-14-49; Thomas v....
Copy

Redmon v. Johnson, 302 Ga. 763 (Ga. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 29, 2018

Baden, Warden v. Ochoa-Hernandez (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 20, 2015

...accordance with this order. The warden appeals. Because the order granting habeas relief does not contain written findings of facts and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based, it fails to meet the requirements of OCGA § 9-14-49. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas court is vacated and the case remanded for issuance of an order in compliance with OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

Tate v. Howerton, 290 Ga. 636 (Ga. 2012).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 27, 2012 | 723 S.E.2d 441, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 586

...Accordingly, the order of the habeas court is hereby vacated and the case *637remanded for the habeas court to consider these claims. The habeas court may conduct another hearing and shall issue an order including findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which its decision is based. See OCGA § 9-14-49....
Copy

McMichen v. Hall, 684 S.E.2d 641 (Ga. 2009).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 19, 2009 | 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3324

...indings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the allegedly-false trial testimony of Gibson Williams and for a new ruling on whether McMichen is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. See Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 327(2), 667 S.E.2d 375 (2008); OCGA § 9-14-49....