Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-14-41 | Car Wreck Lawyer

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

9-14-41. Article as exclusive procedure.

Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, this article provides the exclusive procedure for seeking a writ of habeas corpus for persons whose liberty is being restrained by virtue of a sentence imposed against them by a state court of record.

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

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Appellate jurisdiction.

- Habeas corpus is the exclusive post-appeal procedure available to a criminal defendant who asserts the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the defendant's claim that the defendant's appellate counsel was ineffective in the defendant's initial appeal could not be heard by the appellate court as the court lacked original jurisdiction to consider whether appellate counsel was ineffective in the prior appeal. Mallon v. State, 266 Ga. App. 394, 597 S.E.2d 497 (2004).

Petition for writ of habeas corpus must be filed in the superior court of the county in which the petitioner is detained, and because at the time a defendant filed the amended extraordinary motion for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel the defendant was incarcerated in a different county from that in which the defendant was tried and filed the motion, that motion could not be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the trial court was without authority to consider those contentions. Johnson v. State, 272 Ga. App. 294, 612 S.E.2d 29 (2005).

Exclusive means for seeking review of life sentences, after review by the sentence review panel and after direct appeal, is through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the procedures set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-14-40 et seq. Saleem v. Forrester, 262 Ga. 693, 424 S.E.2d 623, cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1054, 113 S. Ct. 1952, 123 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1993).

Article liberally applied.

- Petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the technical requirements of O.C.G.A. Art. 2, Ch. 14, T. 9; only when the habeas court is able to determine from the face of the petition that it is without merit is it appropriate to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Mitchell v. Forrester, 247 Ga. 622, 278 S.E.2d 368 (1981).

Parolees as applicants.

- Mention of applicants as "persons whose liberty is being restrained by virtue of a sentence" clearly seems to include parolees. Fox v. Dutton, 406 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916, 89 S. Ct. 1764, 23 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1969).

Cited in Patterson v. Earp, 257 Ga. 729, 363 S.E.2d 248 (1988); Derrer v. Anthony, 265 Ga. 892, 463 S.E.2d 690 (1995).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Statutory remedy as exclusive of remedy by habeas corpus otherwise available, 73 A.L.R. 567.

Warning: 'results' key not found in API response

No results found for Georgia Code 9-14-41.