Perry, Warden v. Blevins

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.

3

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: May 6, 2025

S25A0089. PERRY, WARDEN 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, CJ, Warren, PJ, LaGrua and
Colvin, JJ, concur. Bethel, Ellington, and McMillian, JJ,
disqualified.

2