Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. V. Review of cases in Court of Appeals.

Writ of certiorari to Court of Appeals, § 5-6-15.

For article, ‘‘Getting Certiorari Granted,’’ 28 Ga. St. B.J. 90 (1991).

1976 Constitution.

Art. VI, Sec. 2, Para. IV.

preme Court to grant certiorari.

Holliman v. State, 175 Ga. 232, 165 S.E. 11 (1932). Writ issued only for questions of

gravity and importance.

The power of the Supreme Court to require the Court of Appeals to certify a case by certiorari is exercised with great caution and the writ is issued only in cases involving questions of great public concern in matters of gravity and importance. Central of Ga. Ry. v. Yesbik, 146 Ga. 620, 91 S.E. 873 (1917); King v. State, 155 Ga. 707, 118 S.E. 368 (1923); Louisville & N.R.R. v. Tomlin, 161 Ga. 749, 132 S.E. 90 (1926); Adair v. Traco Div., 192 Ga. 59, 14 S.E.2d 466, answer conformed to, 65 Ga. App. 110, 15 S.E.2d 306 (1941); Frazier v. Southern Ry., 200 Ga. 590, 37 S.E.2d 774 (1946). Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. 6, Para. V gives the state’s highest court the power to review by certiorari cases in the Georgia Court of Appeals that are of gravity or great public importance. Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16, 573 S.E.2d 376 (2002). Denial of writ of certiorari shall not sion or judgment of Court of Appeals

be taken as adjudication that deciis correct.

The writ may have been denied for want of sufficient assignment of error in the petition, or for other failure to comply with the rules, or because the case was not considered as one falling within the class which may be reviewed on certiorari. Adair v. Traco Div., 192 Ga. 59, 14 S.E.2d 466, answer conformed to, 65 Ga. App. 110, 15 S.E.2d 306 (1941). Supreme Court determines

whether to grant certiorari.

When conflict in decisions is involved, whether or not writ of certiorari will be granted is a question for determination by the Supreme Court, under the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Frazier v. Southern Ry., 200 Ga. 590, 37 S.E.2d 774 (1946). Court of Appeals decision in favor

of defendant in criminal case.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review by certiorari any decision by the Court of Appeals in the defendant’s favor in a criminal case, and a defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy is not implicated when the state seeks discretionary review of an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals in a criminal case. State v. Tyson, 273 Ga. 690, 544 S.E.2d 444 (2001). ing of issues not reached by Court of

Court not precluded from dispos-Appeals.

While ordinarily the Supreme Court, in granting certiorari, does not undertake to dispose of issues not reached by the Court of Appeals in its decision, it is not precluded from doing so under this paragraph. State v. Royal, 247 Ga. 309, 275 S.E.2d 646 (1981) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. V). Certiorari properly granted where question involved is effect of Carmack Amendment to Hepburn Act (49 U.S.C. §§ 11, 18). Central of Ga. Ry. v. Yesbik, 146 Ga. 620, 91 S.E. 873 (1917).

Federal habeas petitioner.

A federal habeas petitioner was not required to petition the Georgia Supreme Court to review the Georgia appellate court’s decision in the petitioner’s appeal of convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery, the convictions being appealed because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the grand and traverse jury pools, as the state Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction is extremely limited and offered no practical remedy to be exhausted. Buck v. Green, 743 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1984). Because certiorari was only granted in cases of gravity or great public importance under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. V, and the Georgia Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari was not a ruling on the merits, petitioner state inmate had not fairly presented the petitioner’s claims to the state and dismissal of the petitioner’s federal habeas petition was proper for failure to exhaust. Mauk v. Lanier, 484 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2007).

Appeals by state prisoners.

Because a state prisoner did not appeal a conviction to the Georgia Supreme Court, the conviction became final 10 days after the appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the prisoner was not entitled to seek certiorari review to the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). Thus, the habeas petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); although the Georgia Constitution circumscribed review by the Georgia Supreme Court, the Georgia Supreme Court placed no limit on its certiorari jurisdiction under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, O.C.G.A. § 5-6-15, and Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 40. Pugh v. Smith, 465 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006).