O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-14-46 (2019)

Custody and production of petitioner

✓ 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

Custody and control of the petitioner shall be retained by the Department of Corrections or other authority having custody of the petitioner. It shall be the duty of the department or authority to produce the petitioner at such times and places as the court may direct.

History

(Code 1933, § 50-127, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 835, § 3; Ga. L. 1985, p. 283, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS This section contemplates custodians other than the Board of Corrections (now Department of Offender Rehabilitation), including the State Parole Board (now State Board of Pardons and Paroles). 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). Commissioner of department need not be joined as party in habeas action. - As it is the duty of the department

or other authority having custody of a habeas petitioner to produce the petitioner at such times and places as the superior court may direct, it is not necessary that the commissioner of the department be joined as a party in a habeas action. James v. Hight, 251 Ga. 563, 307 S.E.2d 660 (1983). Cited in Heaton v. Lemacks, 266 Ga. 189, 466 S.E.2d 7 (1996).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Transfer of applicant from one institution to another. - Applicant for habeas corpus relief may be transferred from one institution to another, so long as the Board of Corrections (now Department of Offender Rehabilitation) retains the applicant’s custody and the applicant is produced at such times and places as the habeas court may direct, subject to the

sole restriction that an applicant for habeas corpus relief becomes ineligible during the pendency of the applicant’s application for transfer to a county work camp or other institution or form of restraint not maintained by the Board of Corrections (now Department of Offender Rehabilitation). 1971 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 71-160.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus and Postconviction Remedies, §§ 106, 159, 160.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–2005 · leading case: Rickett v. State, 581 S.E.2d 32 (Ga. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rickett v. State, 581 S.E.2d 32 (Ga. 2003). · cites it 2× “However, attendance at the hearing is entirely Rickett’s own responsibility, since he is not under the custody and control of the Department of Corrections or any other authority subject to the direction of the habeas court pursuant to OCGA § 9-14-46. OCGA § 9-14-47 imposes an…”

James v. Hight, 307 S.E.2d 660 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-14-46 (Code Ann. § 50-127). See 1971 Op.”

Heaton v. Lemacks, 466 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 2× “2 OCGA § 9-14-46 (1993). 3 See OCGA § 9-14-44.”

Thompson v. Telfair, 622 S.E.2d 355 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 2× “Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.”

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.