Turpin v. Hill
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarley, Justice
I concur in Divisions 1, 2, 3 (a) and 4 of the majority opinion and in the judgment of reversal. However, I believe that a claim for habeas relief based upon an allegation of mental retardation is subject to procedural default and that the habeas court erred, therefore, in considering the issue of Hill’s alleged mental retardation under any standard. Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with Division 3 (b) of the majority opinion and dissent to the remand for the habeas court’s further consideration of Hill’s claim of mental retardation.
Although Hill did not raise his alleged mental…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sawyer v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Fleming v. ZantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
- Burgess v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
- Black v. HardinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
- Valenzuela v. NewsomeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.