![]() 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. Habeas court failed to properly analyze the prejudice prong of the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the guilty plea entered thus, the order lacked a factually supported legal conclusion essential to the court's ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel claim and essential to the appellate court's appellate review of that ruling. Improper analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 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. Judge's finding not disturbed if supported by any evidence. 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. Cursory oral ruling embodying finding that no rights violated. 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. 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. Ruling that no rights were violated and that trial was fair held sufficient. ![]() 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. Remand of a habeas proceeding to another superior court was improper. ยง 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. ![]() This section does not require trial court at a habeas corpus hearing to set forth each fact upon which the court bases its finding. 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. 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. The findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be recorded as part of the record of the case. ![]() 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. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |