Perry, Warden v. Blevins

915 S.E.2d 602, 321 Ga. 587
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 6, 2025
DocketS25A0089
StatusPublished

This text of 915 S.E.2d 602 (Perry, Warden v. Blevins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perry, Warden v. Blevins, 915 S.E.2d 602, 321 Ga. 587 (Ga. 2025).

Opinion

321 Ga. 587 FINAL COPY

S25A0089. PERRY v. BLEVINS.

PINSON, Justice.

A jury found Thomas Blevins guilty of a number of crimes in

connection with the sexual assault of B. P. Blevins appealed, and the

Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. See Blevins v. State, 343

Ga. App. 539 (808 SE2d 740) (2017). Blevins then filed a petition for

habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. The ha-

beas court granted the writ, and the warden timely appealed that

decision to this Court.

The warden raises several claims of error with respect to some

of the reasons the habeas court gave for granting relief. These claims

may well have merit. But the warden has not challenged certain

other grounds that supported the habeas court’s grant of relief.

Those grounds include the habeas court’s determinations that

Blevins’s counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate victims, failing to investigate juror irregulari-

ties, failing to investigate exculpatory evidence, failing to research

the law of evidence, and failing to question the State’s proof at trial.

We have made clear before that an appellant’s “failure to at-

tack alternative bases for a judgment results in the affirmance of

that judgment.” Brown v. Fokes Props. 2002, Inc., 283 Ga. 231, 233

(2) (657 SE2d 820) (2008) (cleaned up). In such an appeal, even if the

appellate court were to address the claims the appellant raised and

agree that they established error, that decision would have no effect

on an underlying judgment supported by other bases not properly

put before the court for review. Just so here. We are therefore con-

strained to affirm the judgment below. See id.

Judgment affirmed. Peterson, C. J., Warren, P. J., and LaGrua and Colvin, JJ, concur. Bethel, Ellington, and McMillian, JJ., disqualified.

2 Decided May 6, 2025 — Reconsideration denied May 28, 2025.

Habeas corpus. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Ad-

kins.

Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Beth A. Burton, Deputy

Attorney General, Meghan H. Hill, Michael A. Oldham, Senior As-

sistant Attorneys General, for appellant.

Peters Rubin Sheffield & Hodges, Jason B. Sheffield, Linda S.

Sheffield; Christine A. Koehler, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

BLEVINS v. the STATE.
808 S.E.2d 740 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
Brown v. Fokes Properties 2002, Inc.
657 S.E.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
915 S.E.2d 602, 321 Ga. 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-warden-v-blevins-ga-2025.