Chapter 14. Habeas Corpus · Article 2. Procedure for Persons under Sentence of State Court of Record · Last amended 1967 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceIn O.C.G.A. § 9-14-40, the General Assembly explains why it created Article 2 of Georgia’s habeas corpus chapter: to answer the federal courts’ expanding review of state convictions by broadening state habeas relief, softening the state’s waiver doctrine, and channeling these often fact-heavy cases into the superior courts alone.
(1)Expansion of the scope of habeas corpus in federal court by decisions of the United States Supreme Court together with other decisions of the court substantially curtailing the doctrine of waiver of constitutional rights by an accused and limiting the requirement of exhaustion of state remedies to those currently available have resulted in an increasingly large number of convictions of the courts of this state being collaterally attacked by federal habeas corpus based upon issues and contentions not previously presented to or passed upon by courts of this state;
(2)The increased reliance upon federal courts tends to weaken state courts as instruments for the vindication of constitutional rights with a resultant deterioration of the federal system and federal-state relations; and
(3)To alleviate such problems, it is necessary that the scope of state habeas corpus be expanded and the state doctrine of waiver of rights be modified.
(b)The General Assembly further finds that expansion of state habeas corpus to include many sharply contested issues of a factual nature requires that only the superior courts have jurisdiction of such cases.
Plain-English Summary
Georgia enacted this article in 1967 against a backdrop where federal courts were hearing more and more challenges to Georgia convictions through federal habeas corpus, often on claims never presented to a Georgia court first. Subsection (a) walks through the General Assembly’s diagnosis of the problem: the United States Supreme Court’s decisions had widened federal habeas review, cut back the old rule that a defendant could waive a constitutional claim by failing to raise it, and narrowed how much a prisoner had to exhaust in state court before turning to federal court. The result, as the General Assembly saw it, was a growing stream of Georgia convictions being picked apart in federal court on grounds state judges had never had a chance to consider.
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) draw the conclusion: that reliance on federal habeas weakened Georgia’s own courts and strained the working relationship between the state and federal systems, and that the fix was to broaden state habeas corpus itself and soften Georgia’s own waiver doctrine, so prisoners would bring their claims to a Georgia court first rather than skip ahead to federal court.
Subsection (b) explains why the rest of the article puts habeas cases exclusively in the superior courts: broadening state habeas review meant Georgia would now have to referee sharply disputed facts, and the General Assembly wanted only the superior courts handling that fact-finding.
None of this legislative-intent language creates a right of its own. It supplies the reasoning behind the article that follows: the exclusivity rule in Code Section 9-14-41, the modified waiver rules in Code Sections 9-14-42 and 9-14-51, and the exclusive superior-court jurisdiction spelled out in Code Section 9-14-43.
Frequently Asked Questions
What problem was the General Assembly responding to when it wrote this section?
A growing number of Georgia convictions were being collaterally attacked in federal habeas corpus on issues and contentions that had never been presented to or decided by a Georgia court.
Does subsection (a) itself grant a petitioner any right to relief?
No. It states legislative findings explaining why the article exists; the operative rules for seeking relief appear in the later sections of this article.
Why does subsection (b) put habeas jurisdiction only in the superior courts?
Because an expanded state habeas remedy would require resolving sharply contested issues of fact, and the General Assembly wanted only the superior courts handling that kind of fact-finding.
Does this section limit Article 2 to a particular kind of prisoner?
Not by itself. This section states the reasoning behind the article; the article’s actual scope — persons sentenced by a state court of record — is set out in Code Section 9-14-41.
When was Article 2 enacted, and does that history still matter?
1967. It frames the article as a direct response to the expansion of federal habeas review, a purpose later refined by the limitation periods and death sentence procedures added in subsequent amendments.
Amendment History
Ga. L. 1967, p. 835, § 1.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, published by the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Georgia Code Revision Commission / LexisNexis. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:georgia state habeas corpus legislative intentwhy georgia expanded habeas corpus 1967georgia superior court exclusive habeas jurisdictionstate habeas waiver doctrine georgia history