O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-62 (2019)

Exclusive procedure for challenging mental competency to be executed

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, this article provides the exclusive procedure for challenging mental competency to be executed when such challenge is made subsequent to the time of conviction and sentence.

History

Code 1981, § 17-10-62, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1003, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Habeas corpus proceeding. - O.C.G.A. § 17-10-60 et seq. is the exclusive procedure for raising a mentally incompetent to be executed challenge after sentencing, O.C.G.A. § 17-10-62, and creates a rebuttable presumption against re-litigation of a finding of competency instead of applying the stricter habeas

procedural default standard, O.C.G.A. § 17-10-69; accordingly, this issue should not arise in habeas proceedings in Georgia. Perkins v. Hall, 288 Ga. 810, 708 S.E.2d 335 (2011), overruled on other grounds by State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 838 S.E.2d 808 (2020).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). · cites it 2× “1986); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-62 (1982); Ill. Rev.”

Perkins v. Hall, 708 S.E.2d 335 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 4× “, which is the exclusive procedure for raising such a challenge after sentencing, see OCGA § 17-10-62, and creates a rebuttable presumption against re-litigation of a finding of competency instead of applying the stricter habeas procedural default standard, see OCGA § 17-10-69.”

Zant v. Brantley, 411 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the warden’s contention, OCGA § 17-10-62 et seq. is not applicable in this case because there has been no challenge to appellee’s mental competency to be executed.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.