O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49 (2019)

Findings of fact and conclusions of law

✓ 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

After reviewing the pleadings and evidence offered at the trial of the case, the judge of the superior court hearing the case shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based. The findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be recorded as part of the record of the case.

History

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

Annotations

Cross references. - Ruling on petition, Ga. Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 44.12. JUDICIAL DECISIONS This section simply requires the trial judge to set out the judge’s findings of fact, showing a consideration of the facts of the case and a determination in relation to these facts. Day v. Mills, 224 Ga. 741, 164 S.E.2d 828 (1968). This section does not require the trial court at a habeas hearing to set forth each fact upon which the court bases the court’s finding, as these facts appear in the record, and no useful purpose would be accomplished by having the trial judge repeat them. Day v. Mills, 224 Ga. 741, 164 S.E.2d 828 (1968).

This section does not require trial court at a habeas corpus hearing to set forth each fact upon which the court bases its finding. Brown v. Holland, 228 Ga. 628, 187 S.E.2d 246 (1972), overruled on other grounds, Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975). Remand for finding not authorized. - O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49 did not authorize the superior court in a habeas corpus proceeding to remand the proceeding to another superior court for a finding as to whether the defendant voluntarily made a statement to a prison official which was

used in cross-examination at the defendant’s trial. Newsome v. Black, 258 Ga. 787, 374 S.E.2d 733 (1989). Remand of a habeas proceeding to another superior court was improper. - Trial court was not authorized to remand a habeas proceeding to another superior court, or to order the filing of an extraordinary motion for new trial in another superior court; a final order transferring the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims to another county was void ab initio as an unauthorized exercise of authority. Martin v. Astudillo, 280 Ga. 295, 627 S.E.2d 34 (2006). Ruling that no rights were violated and that trial was fair held sufficient. - Trial court makes sufficient findings of fact by expressly ruling as a matter of fact that none of the petitioner’s constitutional rights have been violated by the arresting officers, and that the petitioner has had a fair and legal trial. Brown v. Holland, 228 Ga. 628, 187 S.E.2d 246 (1972), overruled on other grounds, Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975). Adoption of prior ruling held adequate. - When the trial court referred in habeas corpus proceeding to the records admitted in the prior proceeding, and at least by implication, adopted the court’s prior ruling on dismissal of the criminal appeal, the trial court complied with this section. McAuliffe v. Rutledge, 231 Ga. 1, 200 S.E.2d 100 (1973). Cursory oral ruling embodying finding that no rights violated. - Oral

ruling that was cursory and not in compliance with the exact language of this section, but nonetheless embodied a finding that none of the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated, did not constitute reversible error. Bailey v. Baker, 232 Ga. 84, 205 S.E.2d 278 (1974). Judge’s finding not disturbed if supported by any evidence. - On trial of a habeas corpus case, the judge is the trier of both the law and the facts, and if there is any evidence to support the finding of the trial court, even though there is evidence to the contrary, such finding will not be disturbed. Williams v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 453, 192 S.E.2d 378 (1972). Insufficient order denying relief. - Judgment denying an appellant’s request for habeas relief was vacated and the case was remanded because the order denying relief contained no indication of the facts or law on which the trial court based the court’s decision and therefore failed to meet the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49. Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 327, 667 S.E.2d 375 (2008), overruled on other grounds, Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 728 S.E.2d 617 (2012). Cited in White v. Gnann, 225 Ga. 398, 169 S.E.2d 301 (1969); Stynchcombe v. Walden, 226 Ga. 63, 172 S.E.2d 402 (1970); Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 174 S.E.2d 893 (1970); Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804, 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001); Greer v. Thompson, 281 Ga. 419, 637 S.E.2d 698 (2006); In re Baucom, 297 Ga. App. 661, 678 S.E.2d 118 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus and Postconviction Remedies, § 163.

C.J.S. - 39A C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 368 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: ALLEN v. DAKER (& Vice Versa), 858 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ALLEN v. DAKER (& Vice Versa), 858 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 16× “21 which of Daker’s 438 grounds specifically implicate those claims, consider those grounds based on the evidence already presented, and then issue thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law as to those grounds as required by OCGA § 9-14-49, 8 after which either party, if…”

Thomas v. State, 667 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 20× “The court's order was devoid of any statement of facts or conclusions of law as required by OCGA § 9-14-49. We granted the application for certificate of probable cause to examine the issue of whether appellant waived his right to pursue state habeas relief when he entered into…”

Wilson v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “16 See O.C.G.A. § 9-14-49. 16 Other states, like Georgia, have adopted systems that permit their appellate courts to resolve appeals from denials of habeas relief in summary decisions on the merits.”

Greer v. Thompson, 637 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “Therefore, the judgment of the habeas court is reversed and the case is remanded for resolution of the remaining issues and the entry of an order on the remaining issues which complies with OCGA § 9-14-49. Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.”

Hughes v. Sikes, 546 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 2× “This notice of appeal satisfies the requirements of the APA and, in conjunction with the timely application for a certificate of probable cause, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the case upon this Court.”

Caldwell, Warden v. Edenfield; & Vice Versa, 890 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 12× “See OCGA § 9-14-49 (requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law).”

Stewart v. Milliken, 593 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 4× “2d 518 (2001); OCGA § 9-14-49. "Shall be reviewed and determined" are words of mandatory import.”

Redmon v. Johnson, 809 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “The statutory requirements that habeas hearings must be transcribed, see OCGA § 9-14-50, that the habeas court’s order must include written findings of fact and conclusions of law as part of the record, see OCGA § 9-14-49, and that the record (including the transcript, if…”

State v. Houston, 312 Ga. 853 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “Although the habeas court’s order is brief, it contains written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based, and the State does not argue that the order fails to comply with OCGA § 9-14-49. Given a lack of evidence to the contrary, we assume that the…”

Dozier v. Watson, 827 S.E.2d 276 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Because the habeas court failed to properly analyze the prejudice prong, its order lacks a factually supported legal conclusion essential to its ruling on Watson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and essential to our appellate review of that ruling. Therefore, we…”

Johnson v. Roberts, 694 S.E.2d 661 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “rdingly, it appears both from the record of the habeas hearing 4 and from the habeas court’s order that its prejudice prong analysis was focused upon the so-called corrective statements made by the trial court at Johnson’s guilty plea hearing rather than upon the question…”

Garibay v. Terry, 791 S.E.2d 806 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “Here, the trial court announced at the evidentiary hearing that it was denying Garibay’s habeas petition; all that remained was for the habeas court to enter a written final order in accordance with OCGA § 9-14-49. The record reflects that Garibay twice asked the habeas court to…”

Show all 27 citing cases →

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.