Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-14-44 | 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

9-14-44. Petition - Contents and verification.

A petition brought under this article shall identify the proceeding in which the petitioner was convicted, give the date of rendition of the final judgment complained of, clearly set forth the respects in which the petitioner's rights were violated, and state with specificity which claims were raised at trial or on direct appeal, providing appropriate citations to the trial or appellate record. The petition shall have attached thereto affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting its allegations or shall state why the same are not attached. The petition shall identify any previous proceedings that the petitioner may have taken to secure relief from his or her conviction and, in the case of prior habeas corpus petitions, shall state which claims were previously raised. Argument and citations of authorities shall be omitted from the petition; however, a brief may be submitted in support of the petition setting forth any applicable argument. The petition must be verified by the oath of the applicant or of some other person in his or her behalf.

(Code 1933, § 50-127, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 835, § 3; Ga. L. 1995, p. 381, § 3.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1995, p. 381, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995.'"

Ga. L. 1995, p. 381, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides for legislative intent and purpose for this Act.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Petition for habeas corpus must set out facts upon which the petition is predicated, as distinguished from allegations of mere conclusions, and these facts should be specific and not merely general. Salisbury v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 776, 158 S.E.2d 412 (1967).

Issue of right to counsel not raised as ground for habeas corpus relief.

- While a respondent was entitled to counsel on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea to aggravated assault but proceeded pro se on an appeal of the denial of that motion, the issue of the right to counsel was never raised as a ground for habeas corpus relief as required by O.C.G.A. §§ 9-14-44 and9-14-51 and, thus, the respondent was improperly granted a writ of habeas corpus. Murrell v. Young, 285 Ga. 182, 674 S.E.2d 890 (2009).

Mere allegations insufficient.

- Mere allegation that one has been denied constitutional guarantees, without setting forth facts substantiating a violation of such rights, is not a sufficient reason for setting aside a sentence on habeas corpus. Salisbury v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 776, 158 S.E.2d 412 (1967).

Verification of habeas corpus petition.

- When a prisoner completed a form provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts in filing the prisoner's habeas corpus petition, dismissal of the application was improper even though the verification statement did not comply with the traditional form. Heaton v. Lemacks, 266 Ga. 189, 466 S.E.2d 7 (1996).

Separate or joint petitions maintainable for attack on separate convictions.

- Separate convictions pursuant to different trials, with separate grounds for habeas corpus relief, may be attacked by separate petitions as different convictions under separate trials would necessarily involve different offenses and proceedings, and could possibly involve different attorneys and completely different circumstances, but this does not foreclose the option of attacking both convictions in a single habeas corpus petition. Hunter v. Brown, 236 Ga. 168, 223 S.E.2d 145 (1976).

Waiver of challenge to method of proportionality review.

- Habeas corpus petitioner failed to assert in the original petition, the amended petition, or the post-hearing brief a constitutional or statutory challenge to the Supreme Court of Georgia's method of proportionality review as provided in O.C.G.A. § 17-10-35(c); therefore, the petitioner's challenge was waived. Hall v. Lee, 286 Ga. 79, 684 S.E.2d 868 (2009).

Failure to assert ineffective assistance.

- Because the record showed that the defendant did not, either in the habeas petition or at the habeas hearing, assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on inconsistent representation, and the warden was given no notice of and had no meaningful opportunity to investigate or respond to the ground on which the habeas court's grant of relief was based, the habeas court erred by granting relief to the defendant on an unasserted ground, despite the general authority of a habeas court to consider matters sua sponte. Shepard v. Williams, 299 Ga. 437, 788 S.E.2d 428 (2016).

Cited in Beavers v. Smith, 227 Ga. 344, 180 S.E.2d 717 (1971); Calhoun v. Caldwell, 228 Ga. 804, 188 S.E.2d 498 (1972); Proctor v. Ault, 230 Ga. 669, 198 S.E.2d 671 (1973); Horton v. Wilkes, 250 Ga. 902, 302 S.E.2d 94 (1983).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus and Postconviction Remedies, §§ 98, 145 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 39A C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 288 et seq.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-14-44

Total Results: 10  |  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

...frustrated because of a constitutional violation—establishes that the superior court in the county of the defendant’s detention has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the defendant’s habeas petition, OCGA § 9-14-43; contains requirements for what petitions must include, OCGA § 9-14-44, and how they must be served, OCGA § 9-14-45; establishes deadlines for answering a petition, OCGA § 9-14-47; and lays out how hearings must operate, OCGA § 9-14-48, what the habeas court must put in writing to support its judgment,...
Copy

Gibson v. Turpin, 513 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 75 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 22, 1999 | 270 Ga. 855, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 762

...vide meaningful access to the courts. [24] The need for counsel is even greater with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 2262-66, Georgia's Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995 OCGA § 9-14-44, et seq., and Uniform Superior Court Rule 44....
Copy

Davis v. Thomas, 471 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 1996).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 28, 1996 | 266 Ga. 835, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2007

...left the office. Thus, both attorneys have had to assume responsibility for the cases of six other attorneys, in addition to their own cases. The same is true of the only investigator...." [4] See Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995, OCGA § 9-14-44 et seq....
Copy

Hall v. Lee, 684 S.E.2d 868 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 2, 2009 | 286 Ga. 79, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3449

...eview as provided in OCGA § 17-10-35(c), it is waived. See Harris v. State, 114 Ga. 436, 438, 40 S.E. 315 (1901) (holding that a question that is not raised or passed upon in the lower court cannot be considered by a reviewing court). See also OCGA § 9-14-44 (stating that the contents of a habeas petition must "clearly set forth the respects in which the petitioner's rights were violated")....
Copy

Murrell v. Young, 674 S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 23, 2009 | 285 Ga. 182, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 1023

...determine whether Young was actually indigent at the time of appeal such that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel. "A [habeas] petition . . . shall . . . clearly set forth the respects in which the petitioner's rights were violated." OCGA § 9-14-44....
...Here, neither Young's initial pro se habeas petition nor the restated petition filed by habeas counsel asserts the denial of Young's right to counsel on appeal as a basis for relief. [2] Therefore, the issue was not properly raised as required under OCGA §§ 9-14-44 and 9-14-51, and the habeas court accordingly erred by granting relief on this issue....
Copy

Shepard v. Williams, 299 Ga. 437 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 5, 2016 | 788 S.E.2d 428

...lic Defender’s office provided ineffective assistance by failing to provide “consistent representation.” Georgia law requires that a habeas petition “clearly set forth the respects in which the petitioner’s rights were violated,” OCGA § 9-14-44, and that “[a]ll grounds for relief claimed by a habeas petitioner ....
Copy

Horton v. Wilkes, 250 Ga. 902 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 27, 1983 | 302 S.E.2d 94

...Nursey, for appellant. Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, Thomas J. Matthews, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Assistant Attorney General, Janice G. Hildenbrand, Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. OCGA § 9-14-44 (Code Ann....
Copy

Williams v. Hall, 687 S.E.2d 414 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 2, 2009 | 286 Ga. 280, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3461

...[and] deprived [Hall] of a true adversarial process." The habeas court expressly declined to rule on any other ground. The Warden appeals. "A (habeas) petition . . . shall . . . clearly set forth the respects in which the petitioner's rights were violated." OCGA § 9-14-44....
...609, 610, fn. 3, 523 S.E.2d 325 (1999) (warden did not complain that he was denied an opportunity to respond to habeas court's sua sponte consideration of matter not raised by petitioner). Since "the issue was not properly raised as required under OCGA §§ 9-14-44 and 9-14-51,....
Copy

Heaton v. Lemacks, 466 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 1996).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 22, 1996 | 266 Ga. 189, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 283

...Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of his application and remand for a hearing on the merits of his petition. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] James v. Hight, 251 Ga. 563, 307 S.E.2d 660 (1983). [2] OCGA § 9-14-46 (1993). [3] See OCGA § 9-14-44.
Copy

Tumlinson v. Dix, 844 S.E.2d 765 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2020 | 309 Ga. 184

...enied the allegations of the complaint and asserted that Tumlinson was not entitled to habeas relief because he “had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies” and failed to “comply with the requirements of OCGA § 9-14-44.”3 On April 13, 2020, the habeas court dismissed the petition without considering its merits or holding a hearing, stating that “habeas relief is unavailable on bail issues because they can be raised in the pending criminal case.”...
...112 (515 SE2d 839) (1999) (“The interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5- 6-34 (b) are required to obtain review of an order denying or setting pre-trial bond.”). Additionally, in those cases where the petitioner 3 OCGA § 9-14-44 pertains to the content and verification of petitions for habeas corpus relief filed by prisoners under sentence of a Georgia court of record....