Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448If an applicant is determined to have previously filed an application under this article and has previously been determined to be mentally competent to be executed, such prior adjudication shall act as a presumption of mental competency and the applicant shall not be entitled to a new hearing on the question of mental competency to be executed absent the applicant's making a prima-facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to raise a significant question as to the applicant's mental competency to be executed at the time of filing of any subsequent applications.
(Code 1981, §17-10-69, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1003, § 2.)
- 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).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-03-18
Citation: 708 S.E.2d 335, 288 Ga. 810, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 758, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 255
Snippet: *826habeas procedural default standard, see OCGA § 17-10-69. Accordingly, this issue should not arise in habeas