Kennedy v. Carlton
Annotate this Case
In 2012, Lewis Carlton made several telephone calls to neighbors of the foster mother of his three children. Representing himself as an employee with the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), Carlton questioned the neighbors regarding the foster mother's treatment of his children. Neighbors brought the foster mother over to listen in on a conversation with Carlton, at which point the foster mother identified the caller as Carlton and telephoned the police. Carlton was indicted on thirteen separate counts; however, orders of nolle prosequi were entered on ten as part of a negotiated plea agreement. The remaining three counts each charged Carlton with impersonating of public employee. Carlton then backed out of the plea deal and decided to take his case to trial. The next day, the parties had lengthy argument as to the constitutionality of the impersonation statute as applied to Carlton. Shortly thereafter, Carlton requested the same plea deal that previously had been offered. The parties then returned to superior court and Carlton entered an Alford plea to all three impersonation counts. At that hearing, Carlton repeatedly expressed to the superior court his concern and understanding that he would retain the right to attack the statute's legality, stating he would not waive a habeas corpus to challenge impersonation statute. Carlton then petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus, initially asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his due process right for being convicted of three counts of an indictment which failed to establish a crime. However, he amended his petition to leave only his due process argument and his challenge to the impersonation statute. The habeas court granted Carlton's petition, ruling that OCGA 16-10-23 failed to adequately hold itself out as applicable to public employees as opposed to public officers, and thus, the statute did not provide Carlton with appropriate notice that he could be criminally responsible for impersonating a DFCS employee. The warden appealed the superior court's grant of habeas relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with the superior court's reasoning and reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.