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