Great Writ Hit Of 1967

In 1967 the historic Georgia Habeas Corpus Act hugely expanded post-conviction Habeas Corpus and Appeals relief in the Georgia criminal justice system. Unfortunately, this progress has been impeded by two major trends listed below:

1. Six Georgia habeas statutes passed from 1973 to 2004 have shrunk the number of claims which may be made in post-conviction habeas cases, stopped post-conviction appeals of post-conviction habeas decisions, and added an enormous amount of bureaucratic regulations that make it difficult to receive post-conviction habeas relief.
2. Five Georgia Supreme Court decisions, issued between 1975 and 2012, have severely limited post-conviction habeas corpus, both in terms of procedures and the number of options.

In Georgia we provide the following for our clients who have been convicted:

• Motion to Reduce Sentence
• Appeals
• Request for New Trial
• Vacate a Previous Conviction
• Motions Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
• Pardons
• Clemency
• Communications
• Habeas Corpus Relief

Current Georgia Post Conviction Motions

In Georgia there are really three main options for post-trial:

1. Number One: Motions for a New Trial Due to New Evidence
2. Number Two: Motions for Post-Conviction Relief Due to Legal Errors During the Trial
3. Number Three: Motions Based on Ineffective Counsel.

These options are based on fairly recent Georgia Laws, one of which states that a Georgia prisoner can bring a habeas corpus action to challenge his conviction and sentence if he believes “there was a substantial denial of his rights under the Constitution of the United States or of this state in the “proceedings which resulted in his conviction.” C.G.A. § 9-14-42(a), (c). Properly raised allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel present cognizable claims for habeas relief. Hicks v. Scott, 273 Ga. 358, 359 (2001). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in Georgia, a defendant must demonstrate that: a) his trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and that 2) counsel’s deficiency so prejudiced his defense that a reasonable probability exists that the result of the trial would have been a difference but for that deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984). The defendant must overcome the presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. Boyd v. State, 275 Ga. 774 (2002).

If you need assistance with Appeals and Habeas Corpus, call us at (404) 642-7350 today for a free consult!