Ward, Commissioner v. Carlton ( 2022 )

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: January 19, 2022
S21A1088. WARD v. CARLTON.
NAHMIAS, Chief Justice.
The Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections,
Timothy Ward, 1 appeals the habeas court’s order granting relief to
petitioner Lewis Carlton on the ground that the trial court lacked
authority to revoke Carlton’s probation arising from his 2012
convictions by guilty pleas before the probationary period of the
criminal sentences began. The Commissioner argues that the trial
court was authorized by statute and precedent to revoke Carlton’s
probation before it began. Carlton responds that the habeas court
1 Both Commissioner Ward and Robert Adams, Jr., Warden of the
Jenkins Correctional Facility, were named as parties in the habeas court. The
notice of appeal listed both parties in the case caption as “Respondents” but
referred only to “Respondent Ward” in the text. In this Court, the appellant’s
brief includes only Commissioner Ward as the “Appellant/Respondent” in the
case caption and in the text. It is unclear from the record why Warden Adams
is no longer a party or if his removal was intentional. Carlton appears to
remain incarcerated at the Jenkins Correctional Facility.
was correct in granting relief because the trial court lacked such
authority. He also claims that the trial court’s actions rendered his
guilty pleas unknowing and invalid because he would not have
entered the pleas had he known that his probation could be revoked
before the probationary period began – claims that the habeas court
ruled that the trial court should address in the first instance in the
context of a motion for out-of-time appeal. For the reasons explained
below, we conclude that the habeas court erred both in ruling that
the trial court could not revoke Carlton’s probation and in not ruling
on Carlton’s invalid-plea claims as well as other claims he asserted.
We therefore reverse the habeas court’s judgment in part and
remand the case for further consideration consistent with this
opinion. 2
1. The record shows the following.
(a) Carlton’s 2012 Criminal Convictions and Sentences
On September 20, 2012, a Cobb County grand jury indicted
2 As discussed in footnote 10 below, Carlton does not dispute the habeas
court’s rejection of three of his claims, so those portions of the judgment stand.
2
Carlton for three counts of interstate interference with custody, four
counts of impersonation of a public employee (a Division of Family
and Children Services worker), two counts of burglary, two counts
of criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking, and two counts
of criminal attempt to commit kidnapping. On October 15, 2012,
Carlton entered a negotiated Alford3 plea to three counts of
impersonation of a public employee (Counts 4, 6, and 7), and the
remaining counts were nolle prossed.
The trial court sentenced Carlton to serve five years in prison
on Count 4, a consecutive split sentence of five years – one year to
serve in prison and four years to serve on probation – on Count 6,
and a consecutive five years to serve on probation on Count 7, for a
total sentence of six years to serve in prison and nine years to serve
on probation. 4 On the sentencing disposition form for Count 4, the
3 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (91 SCt 160, 27 LE2d 162)
(1970).
4 The Commissioner’s brief incorrectly says that Carlton received a split
sentence of four years to serve in prison with the one-year balance to serve on
probation, and thus also says incorrectly that his total sentence was nine years
in prison and six years on probation.
3
general and other terms of probation section was struck through, as
were the words “see Addendum ‘A’ for special conditions of
probation.” The sentencing disposition forms for Counts 6 and 7
included general terms and conditions of Carlton’s probation, as well
as special conditions of his probation reflected in an Addendum A.
The special condition at issue in this case said, “Defendant shall
have no contact with his children unless an order from the Cobb
County juvenile court allows it.” Carlton did not appeal.
(b) The Probation Revocation Proceeding
About two years later, on October 3, 2014, while Carlton was
incarcerated based on his sentence on Count 4, the State filed a
petition to revoke his probation, alleging that he had violated the
special condition by attempting to contact his children by telephone
and mail on three occasions at their adoptive parents’ residence. On
November 17, the petition was amended to add that Carlton had
violated the first general condition of his probation, which was “not
to violate the criminal laws of any government unit,” alleging that
he had committed the offense of aggravated stalking by attempting
4
to contact his children by mail.
At the revocation hearing held on September 30, 2015,
Carlton’s counsel argued that the trial court did not have the
authority to revoke Carlton’s probation because he was still serving
the confinement portion of his sentence and the probated period had
not yet begun. Relying on Postell v. Humphrey, 278 Ga. 651 (604
SE2d 517) (2004), the trial court determined that it had the
authority to revoke Carlton’s probation prior to the beginning of the
probationary period.
On October 1, 2015, the trial court issued a revocation order,
finding that Carlton had violated the terms of his probation by
attempting to contact his children by telephone and mail and by
committing criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking. 5 The
court revoked six years of Carlton’s probation based on the violations
of his probation conditions, ordered that he serve that time
5The habeas court noted in its final order that the trial court used a form
order which incorrectly states that Carlton waived his right to a hearing on the
probation revocation matter.
5
consecutive to the six years he was already sentenced to serve in
prison, and modified his probation terms in an addendum. 6 Carlton
filed an application for discretionary appeal of the revocation order,
but the Court of Appeals dismissed the application as untimely.
(c) This Habeas Proceeding
On December 28, 2018, Carlton, acting pro se, filed the habeas
corpus petition now at issue – his third habeas petition – in the
Baldwin County Superior Court, challenging the validity of his
original convictions and the trial court’s revocation order on seven
grounds. On June 9, 2019, he amended his petition to add an eighth
ground. After Carlton was transferred to the Jenkins Correctional
Facility, the habeas case was transferred to the Jenkins County
Superior Court (“habeas court”). On January 6, 2020, Carlton
amended his petition again to raise a ninth ground, and at the
evidentiary hearing on February 18, 2020, he amended the petition
6 Carlton refused to sign the revocation order and the addendum.
6
to add a tenth ground. 7 The ten grounds were as follows:
1. Due process violation in that the trial court revoked
Carlton’s probation before he began it and before he
entered probation before being released from prison.
2. Equal protection violation because Carlton was said to
have violated a condition of probation before the
conditions began.
3. Ineffective assistance of plea counsel in that counsel
told Carlton that no condition of his probation would
begin until he was released from the prison sentence,
reported to his probation office within 48 hours of his
release, and signed probationary documents, and that
probation conditions would not interfere with his
parental rights.
4. Due process violation because Carlton’s probationary
term was revoked prematurely based on statutory
provisions that were vague, ambiguous, and overbroad
provisions in OCGA §§ 17-10-1 (a) (4), 17-10-1 (7) (A),
and 42-8-34 (g).
5. Cruel and unusual punishment in that one of the
special conditions of probation is that Carlton is
banned from every county in Georgia except for Echols
County, and he has been unable to abide by this
condition due to Cobb County and the Department of
Corrections forcing him to be in confinement outside of
Echols County.
6. Due process challenge to OCGA § 17-10-1 (a), claiming
that the statute violates Carlton’s right to due process
because it is ambiguous, overbroad, and
unconstitutional.
7. Guilty plea not knowingly and intelligently entered
because the trial court and Carlton’s trial attorneys
7 There was no testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and the parties
tendered only documents into evidence.
7
specifically stated that the conditions of probation
would not be active until he was released from prison
and that his convictions would not contribute to his
parental rights being terminated.
8. Ineffective assistance of probation revocation counsel.
9. Illegal conviction in that impersonation of a public
employee is not a crime as contemplated by OCGA § 16-
10-23.
10. Void indictment as to Counts 4, 6, and 7 in that the
indictment was void on its face because it did not allege
any of the essential elements contained in the statute.
(d) The Attempted Aggravated Stalking Case
Meanwhile, in August 2018, Carlton was tried and convicted in
Cobb County of criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking, the
conduct that was in part the basis for his probation revocation. He
appealed, and on June 29, 2020 – after the habeas hearing – the
Court of Appeals reversed those convictions based on the erroneous
admission of bad-character evidence. See Carlton v. State, 356 Ga.
App. 1, 7-10 (846 SE2d 175) (2020).
In the appeal, Carlton also argued, among other things, that
because the State did not introduce evidence of a no-contact order
that was “in effect” at the time he sent a postcard and letter to his
children, there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the
8
proof at trial. See id. at 4. See also OCGA § 16-5-91 (a) (defining
aggravated stalking to require proof that the defendant stalked the
victim in violation of a court order then “in effect”). In the course of
its discussion of that issue, the Court of Appeals stated that the no-
contact probation condition in Carlton’s 2012 criminal sentence
“pertained only to Counts 6 and 7, which he was not yet serving at
the time he sent the postcard and letter [to his children’s residence].”
Carlton, 356 Ga. App. at 5. In a footnote, the court elaborated:
On Count 4, Carlton was sentenced to five years to serve,
with no probation. And Carlton’s sentence on Counts 6
and 7 was to be served consecutively to Count 4. Carlton
was sentenced on Count 4 less than two years before he
sent the postcard and the letter. The State presented no
evidence that he had transitioned, for any reason, to
serving his sentence on Count 6 or 7. Accordingly, there
is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that
at the time he sent the postcard and letter Carlton was
subject to the no-contact provision pertaining to Counts 6
and 7 of the Criminal Sentence.
Id. at 5 n.4. Based on this analysis, the Court of Appeals concluded
that there was a variance between the indictment and the evidence,
but then held that the variance was not fatal because Carlton’s
letters had violated the no-contact provision in an earlier juvenile
9
court order and he had not claimed surprise. See id. at 4-6.
(e) The Habeas Court’s Final Order
On March 2, 2021, the habeas court granted relief to Carlton
in a 10-page final order. After summarizing the procedural history,
the grounds Carlton raised, and the factual background, the order
concludes that Carlton’s probation revocation claims were not
impermissibly successive, despite his two earlier habeas cases in
Chatham County and Wheeler County. In Carlton’s first habeas
case, the Chatham County Superior Court had granted him relief
based on its determination that the statute he had pled guilty to
violating, OCGA § 16-10-23, was unconstitutionally vague, but this
Court reversed that decision. See Kennedy v. Carlton, 294 Ga. 576,
576 (757 SE2d 46) (2014). The Wheeler County Superior Court had
then dismissed as successive Carlton’s second habeas petition,
which he had amended to include claims about his probation
revocation.
The habeas court in this case pointed out that it was not
possible for Carlton to have raised the claims relating to his
10
probation revocation in his first, Chatham County habeas case,
because the revocation had not yet occurred, so the claims could not
have been successive in his second, Wheeler County habeas case.
The habeas court noted that the Wheeler County court’s final order
did not include any factual findings addressing Carlton’s amended
claims relating to the revocation, and the Wheeler County court
never made a determination of whether those claims were
procedurally barred or defaulted.
The habeas court also noted that the Court of Appeals’
dismissal of Carlton’s untimely application for discretionary appeal
of the probation revocation order would generally operate as a final
judgment that would foreclose consideration of any grounds
subsequently raised relating to the revocation order (that is, the
claims would have been procedurally defaulted or barred in his new
habeas petition, despite the Wheeler County court’s making no such
rulings). However, the habeas court said that “subsequent findings
in a published opinion by the Court of Appeals of Georgia strongly
suggest that the trial court may have been without jurisdiction to
11
revoke Carlton’s probation at the time of the revocation.”8 The
habeas court concluded that “the claims relating to the [trial] court’s
revocation of Carlton’s probation are not successive[.]”9
The “Analysis” section of the habeas court’s order then begins
by explaining that “Georgia’s customary procedural default rule . . .
does not apply to a claim that a criminal conviction or sentence was
void on jurisdictional or other grounds,” citing Tolbert v. Toole, 296
Ga. 357, 361 & n.8 (767 SE2d 24) (2014). The court said that – based
“on the substance of Carlton’s claims on the whole” – the evidence
before the court demonstrated that “Carlton’s [revocation] sentence
is void as a matter of law because the probation revocation
proceedings were likely void ab initio in that the [trial] court lacked
jurisdiction.”
8 We note that the parties had not filed any briefs regarding the Court of
Appeals’ intervening decision in Carlton’s attempted aggravated stalking case,
nor did the habeas court ask the parties to do so.
9 Even if erroneous (as it appears it was), the Wheeler County court’s
ruling that Carlton’s revocation claims were successive would seem to be res
judicata in this subsequent habeas proceeding. However, while the habeas
court appears to have had access to the record of the Wheeler County habeas
case, that record is not in the appellate record here, and the Commissioner
does not enumerate error regarding the successiveness issue in his appeal.
12
Next, the habeas court noted that “distilled to its essence,”
Carlton’s argument was that the terms of his negotiated guilty pleas
were broken and that he was subject to punishment that the law
does not allow. Carlton “aver[red]” that when he entered the
negotiated plea, his understanding was that the special condition of
probation prohibiting contact with his children would not be
effective unless and until the resolution of proceedings in the Cobb
County Juvenile Court, where there was a pending matter regarding
the termination of his parental rights. Carlton had consistently
maintained that he was told by the Division of Family and Children
Services that he would need to demonstrate a meaningful
relationship with his children in order to avoid termination of his
parental rights. Carlton’s probation was revoked during the time
that he was serving his sentence of confinement on Count 4, which
included no period of probation. He argued that he could not have
been subject to the special condition of probation during that time.
He further averred that if he had known that he would be subject to
the no-contact condition as applied by the court, he would not have
13
pled guilty.
The habeas court pointed out that although the trial court
pronounced that the first special condition of probation was “you
shall have no contact with the children unless and until an order
from the Cobb County juvenile court allows you to do so,” the trial
court also told him:
Mr. Carlton, you’re going to be on probation with me for
approximately nine years. During that period of time, I
think it goes without saying that you and I just don’t need
to see each other in this courtroom during that period of
time, and I expect you to abide by each and every one of
the terms and conditions of probation that I set forth for
you just a moment ago.
(Emphasis in habeas court’s order; footnote omitted). The habeas
court said that this language supported Carlton’s argument “that
his understanding was that the [trial] court intended him to abide
by the special conditions of probation only upon the start of the
probated period.”
Under the heading “New Facts,” the habeas court then
explained that it had “become aware” of the Court of Appeals opinion
in Carlton’s attempted aggravated stalking case. Pointing to the
14
fatal-variance discussion in that opinion, the habeas court
concluded:
According to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Carlton had
not transitioned into serving the probated portions of his
sentences under Counts 6 and 7, and there was no
probationary period attached to the maximum sentence of
confinement under Count 4, which he was serving at the
time his probation was revoked. In other words, Carlton’s
probation could not have been revoked based on a
violation of probationary terms that applied to a
probationary period [that] had not yet begun.
In a footnote, however, the habeas court recognized that the Court
of Appeals had not applied an “aggregate sentence” analysis, citing
Layson v. Montgomery, 251 Ga. 359 (306 SE2d 245) (1983), and
Parrish v. Ault, 237 Ga. 401 (228 SE2d 808) (1976).
The habeas court next discussed “Out of Time Appeal
Considerations.” The court said that “[b]ased on the evidence,
Carlton should be entitled to pursue out-of-time appeal remedies,”
and the record did not “show that Carlton has availed himself of that
procedure.” Even though the habeas court recognized that a
petitioner can seek an out-of-time appeal in a habeas proceeding, the
court concluded that “any claims that relate back to Carlton’s guilty
15
plea in 2012[] are not yet ripe for consideration in habeas,” and
“[j]udicial economy would be better served if Carlton sought that
relief in the trial court.” Considering “specific claims raised in the
[habeas] petition,” the court ruled that ground 5 was meritless
because of the amendment of Carlton’s probation order and grounds
9 and 10 were procedurally barred by rulings in Carlton’s first
habeas case.
At the end of this section, the habeas court said that while it
“ha[d] not specifically enumerated the Grounds addressed, as raised
in [Carlton’s] Petition, the [c]ourt has considered all of Carlton’s
claims in substance rather than strict construal of each individual
claim.” (Emphasis in original). The court concluded:
Based upon the . . . determinations by the Court of
Appeals of Georgia relating to the very matters before the
[trial] court at the probation revocation hearing on
October 1, 2015, this [c]ourt must GRANT habeas corpus
relief because an alternative result would directly
contradict determinations made by the Court of Appeals
of Georgia.
In a footnote, the habeas court stated that “[h]abeas courts are
bound by determinations made by the Court of Appeals of Georgia,
16
even if erroneous,” citing Buckner v. Barrow, 297 Ga. 68 (772 SE2d
703) (2015).
Finally in the “Conclusion” of the order, the habeas court said
that Carlton had raised a “meritorious due process argument that
warrants granting Writ of Habeas Corpus,” and remanded Carlton
to the custody of the trial court where he “may be entitled to pursue
additional post-conviction remedies.”
On March 11, 2021, the Commissioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing that the trial court had the authority to
revoke Carlton’s probation before the probationary period began. Six
days later, the habeas court summarily denied the motion. The
Commissioner then filed this appeal.
2. The Commissioner contends that the habeas court erred
when it granted relief on the ground that the trial court did not have
the authority to revoke Carlton’s probation when the probationary
period of his 2012 sentences had not yet begun. We agree.
OCGA § 17-10-1 (a) (1) (A) says, in pertinent part:
The judge imposing the sentence is granted power and
17
authority to suspend or probate all or any part of the
entire sentence under such rules and regulations as the
judge deems proper, . . . including the authority to revoke
the suspension or probation when the defendant has
violated any of the rules and regulations prescribed by the
court, even before the probationary period has begun[.]
In Postell v. Humphrey, 278 Ga. 651 (604 SE2d 517) (2004) – the
case on which the trial court relied in revoking Carton’s probation –
this Court explained that the General Assembly had amended
OCGA § 17-10-1 (a) (1) (A) in 2001 to “provide expressly that
sentencing judges [are] authorized ‘to revoke . . . probation . . . even
before the probationary period has begun.’” Id. at 652 (quoting the
statute). See also Layson, 251 Ga. at 360 (upholding “the revocation
of the probated portion of a sentence based on a separate crime
committed during the portion of the [split] sentence to be served in
confinement”); Parrish, 237 Ga. at 401-402 (holding that “a trial
judge can revoke a probated sentence that is to begin at a future
date,” and explaining that whether a defendant’s sentences on four
felony counts – a split sentence of three years to serve in prison and
two years on probation on the first count, followed by five-year
18
concurrent probation sentences on the other three counts – were
“considered one sentence or four sentences is immaterial for
practical purposes” when “[t]he ten years was imposed by the same
trial judge at the same time”). Thus, the Commissioner is correct
that, under OCGA § 17-10-1 (a) (1) (A) and our precedent, the trial
court was authorized to revoke Carlton’s probation even before the
probationary period of his sentences began.
The habeas court did not appear to dispute this proposition.
Instead, the habeas court indicated that it felt bound to grant relief
on Carlton’s claim that the trial court was unauthorized to revoke
his probation because the Court of Appeals had said, in the course
of deciding Carlton’s appeal from his attempted aggravated stalking
convictions, that Carlton was not yet subject to the no-contact
probation condition at the time he violated that condition, as he was
still serving his confinement sentence on Count 4 of his original case
and had not yet “transitioned” into serving his probationary
sentences on Counts 6 and 7. Although the habeas court did not cite
Postell, it recognized that the Court of Appeals’ discussion was
19
inconsistent with the analysis set forth in Layson and Parrish.
Nevertheless, the habeas court relied on Buckner for the
proposition that it was “bound by determinations made by the Court
of Appeals of Georgia, even if erroneous.” Buckner held that “if an
issue is raised and resolved on direct appeal from a criminal
conviction, the habeas court is bound by the appellate ruling and
cannot reexamine it, even if it appears erroneous[.]” 297 Ga. at 69.
See also Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353, 354 (466 SE2d 837) (1996)
(noting that, under the law of the case doctrine, the habeas court
was bound by a prior ruling on direct appeal “regardless of whether
that ruling may be erroneous”). The principle set forth in Buckner
does not apply, however, under the circumstances of this case.
While appealing his convictions for attempted aggravated
stalking – not the trial court’s separate and earlier revocation of his
probation, which he was unsuccessful in trying to appeal – Carlton
argued that there was a fatal variance between his attempted
aggravated stalking indictment and the proof at trial because the
State failed to introduce evidence of a no-contact order in effect at
20
the time he sent the postcard and letter to his children. See Carlton,
356 Ga. App. at 4. The Court of Appeals did not address, much less
resolve, the issue of whether the trial court in Carlton’s earlier
public-employee-impersonation case had authority to revoke his
probation before he began serving the probationary period of his
sentences, which is an issue governed by the plain text of OCGA
§ 17-10-1 (a) (1) (A) and our decisions in Postell, Layson, and
Parrish. Instead, the Court of Appeals decided the legally distinct
question of whether Carlton had violated a court order then “‘in
effect’” as that term is used in the aggravated stalking statute.
Carlton, 356 Ga. App. at 5 (quoting OCGA § 16-5-91 (a) and citing
only a Court of Appeals case interpreting that statute). We need not
and do not decide whether the Court of Appeals’ discussion of
Carlton’s sentences with respect to the latter statutory question was
correct, as that question is not presented here and it is clear that the
court did not issue a ruling on the revocation-authority issue that
Carlton raised in this habeas case, which means that the law of the
case doctrine applied in cases like Buckner does not apply here. See
21
Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 285 Ga. 184, 186 n.5
(674 SE2d 894) (2009) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine
applies only to issues expressly ruled on previously, not an “implied”
ruling on an issue not addressed in the previous decision); Woodrum
v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 360 Ga. App. 126, 129 (860 SE2d
900) (2021) (same). See also DeHart v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 270 Ga.
381, 387 (509 SE2d 913) (1998) (Carley, J., concurring) (explaining
that “[a]lthough this appeal does involve the same parties as [in an
earlier decision], it arises in the context of separate litigation
wherein a different question is presented for resolution,” so the
earlier decision does not constitute law of the case).
Accordingly, the habeas court was not bound by the Court of
Appeals’ inapposite ruling and instead should have decided
Carlton’s revocation-authority claim on its merits. And because
OCGA § 17-10-1 (a) (1) (A), Postell, Layson, and Parrish make it
clear that such a claim has no merit, we reverse the habeas court’s
grant of relief on that ground.
22
3. As outlined in Division 1 above, Carlton raised 10 grounds
in his habeas petition as amended, but the habeas court ruled
expressly only on ground 1 (granting relief) and grounds 5, 9, and 10
(denying relief). Rather than individually addressing the remaining
six grounds, the habeas court noted that it had “considered all of
Carlton’s claims in substance rather than strict construal of each
individual claim.” (Emphasis in original). The court ruled, however,
that Carlton was entitled to pursue out-of-time appeal remedies in
the trial court, so his claims related to his 2012 guilty plea
convictions were not yet ripe for consideration in habeas and
“[j]udicial economy would be better served if Carlton sought that
relief in the trial court.”
The habeas court cited no authority, and we see no basis, for
declining to address claims that properly can be raised in a habeas
proceeding because such claims might also be raised in the judicially
created – and recently questioned – out-of-time appeal process in the
trial court, especially when doing so may allow a habeas petitioner
to circumvent the statute of limitations and other statutory
23
provisions that apply to habeas actions. 10 See Schoicket v. State, ___
Ga. ___, ___ (865 SE2d 170, 172-173) (2021); Collier v. State, 307 Ga.
363, 379-382 (834 SE2d 769) (2019) (Peterson, J., concurring
specially). We therefore also reverse the habeas court’s judgment to
the extent the court declined to address Carlton’s claims.
On remand, the habeas court should rule on Carlton’s claims
related to his 2012 guilty pleas. It is unclear which of Carlton’s other
claims the habeas court believed were “in substance” the same as
his ground 1 (or perhaps were mooted by the court’s grant of relief
on that ground).11 On remand, and consistent with our reversal of
10 In this respect, we note that in the habeas court, the Commissioner
argued that Carlton’s claims related to his 2012 guilty plea convictions (which
the Commissioner identified as grounds 3, 5, and 7) were untimely under
OCGA § 9-14-42 (c) (1), which says that “[a]ny [post-conviction habeas] action
. . . shall be filed . . . within four years in the case of a felony . . . from . . . [t]he
judgment of conviction becoming final by the conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review[.]” In response, Carlton argued
that the limitation period did not begin to run until the probation revocation
order was issued on October 1, 2015, relying on OCGA § 9-14-42 (c) (4), which
extends the habeas filing deadline to four years after “[t]he date on which the
facts supporting the claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.” The habeas court’s order does not address the
timeliness of Carlton’s claims, although ground 5 was denied on the merits.
11 The Commissioner asserts that the habeas court granted relief only on
ground 1, and denied relief on the remaining grounds. Carlton argues that the
habeas court implicitly granted relief on all grounds except ground 5, which
24
the court’s grant of relief on ground 1, the court should address any
remaining grounds as well, making sure to provide the required
“written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the
judgment is based.” OCGA § 9-14-49.
Judgment reversed in part, and case remanded with direction.
All the Justices concur.
the habeas court expressly ruled was meritless, and grounds 9 and 10, which
the habeas court expressly determined were procedurally barred. But in any
event, Carlton did not seek review of and does not dispute the habeas court’s
rulings rejecting grounds 5, 9, and 10, so those portions of the habeas court’s
order stand.
25