Georgia CommonsHouse · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HR 1703: House Study Committee on Criminal Post-Conviction Litigation; create
Last action March 25, 2026 · House Committee Favorably Reported
A Georgia House resolution would create a 12-member study committee to examine long delays in resolving ineffective assistance of counsel claims after criminal convictions, with a report due by December 1, 2026.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the resolution and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Introduced version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
When someone convicted of a crime in Georgia claims their trial lawyer performed poorly enough to violate their right to counsel, Georgia court rules require a new lawyer to raise that claim, often causing years-long delays before a motion for new trial is decided. The resolution's preamble cites Georgia Supreme Court cases and a recent concurring opinion from Chief Justice Nels Peterson describing the state's post-conviction system as 'a mess' that requires legislative action to fix. This resolution creates the House Study Committee on Criminal Post-Conviction Litigation, made up of 12 members including legislators, judges, the Attorney General, and representatives of defense lawyers and prosecutors. The committee would study the delays and problems described and recommend legislation. It must hold meetings, may issue a report with proposed legislation, and is set to be abolished on December 1, 2026.
What the bill does
- Creates a 12-member House Study Committee on Criminal Post-Conviction Litigation to examine delays in resolving ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
- Directs the Speaker of the House to appoint five legislative members, including chairs of specific House committees, and seven nonlegislative members such as judges and legal association leaders.
- Authorizes the committee to study the problems described in the resolution and recommend legislation or other action.
- Sets rules for committee meetings, expense reimbursement for members, and funding from House-appropriated funds.
- Requires any approved findings or recommendations to be filed as a report with the Clerk of the House before the committee is abolished.
- Abolishes the committee automatically on December 1, 2026.
Who it affects
The resolution directly affects members appointed to the study committee, including legislators, superior court judges, the Attorney General, the Chief Justice, and leaders of the State Bar, criminal defense lawyers, and prosecutors. More broadly, it concerns criminal defendants raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims and the public defender system.
Why it matters
The study could lead to legislation changing how Georgia handles claims that a defendant's trial lawyer performed poorly, a process the resolution says currently causes years-long delays in resolving appeals for people convicted of crimes, affecting defendants, courts, and public defender offices statewide.
Key provisions
- Paragraph (1) creates the House Study Committee on Criminal Post-Conviction Litigation.
- Paragraph (2) sets the committee's 12 members: five appointed legislators (including specific committee chairs) and seven nonlegislative members such as judges, the Attorney General, and bar leaders.
- Paragraph (3) directs the committee to study the delays in post-conviction litigation and recommend action or legislation.
- Paragraph (5) sets expense allowances for legislative, state official, and nonlegislative members, capped at five days unless extended, funded through House appropriations.
- Paragraph (6) requires any approved findings or recommendations to be filed as a report with the Clerk of the House before abolishment.
- Paragraph (7) abolishes the committee on December 1, 2026.
From the bill
“Georgia's post-conviction litigation system is a mess. It's a mess in large part because of a series of well-meaning but short-sighted decisions this Court made over the course of several decades.”
“In short, the system is broken. We did a lot of the breaking. But it will require legislative action to fix it.”
Discussed in meetings (5)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Special Rules Committee, March 23, 2026 (part 1)
From 0:51:39 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HR 1703 would create a 12-member study committee to examine criminal post-conviction litigation and court-created rules concerning conflicts of interest and public defenders. The sponsor cited a recent Georgia Supreme Court decision and a concurring opinion as recognizing problems with those rules. The sponsor argued that changes could move cases faster and reduce spending on outside lawyers appointed because of conflicts, which the sponsor described as costing millions of dollars. In response to the chair's question, the sponsor said a study would allow time to consider changes rather than rushing legislation after an opinion issued only a week or two earlier. The committee approved the resolution by voice vote and sent it to Rules.
House Rules Committee, April 2, 2026
From 0:49:53 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: A committee member requested action on HR 1703, which would create a study committee on post-conviction litigation. The member said appeals take too long because of conflicts created by court decisions and said the chief justice had recently asked lawmakers to address the problem in a court opinion. No vote was shown.
Status timeline
- House Committee Favorably Reported (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Stan Gunter (R, HD-8)
- Tyler Paul Smith (R, HD-18)
- Rob Leverett (R, HD-123)
- Esther Panitch (D, HD-51)
- Scott Holcomb (D, HD-101)
- Chuck Efstration (R, HD-104)
Topics
- criminal justice
- ineffective assistance of counsel
- public defenders
- court delays
- legislative study committees