O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-69 (2019)

Prior adjudication as presumption of mental competency

✓ 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

If 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.

History

Code 1981, § 17-10-69, 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 1 case, 2011–2011 · leading case: Perkins v. Hall, 708 S.E.2d 335 (Ga. 2011).
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.…”
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.