See 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 47, 49 (2001).Glover v. State, 247 Ga. App. 789 ( 545 SE2d 348) (2001). 274 Ga. 54 ( 548 SE2d 5) (2001).
Considering the statutory language and its appellate history, the habeas court acted in the understandable belief that Glover II required it to rule as it did. Indeed, the habeas court's conclusion that Petitioner's sentence is void is entirely consistent with the Court of Appeals' holding, on remand, that in Glover II this "Court did not disagree . . . that OCGA ยง 42-8-34.1 does not authorize the imposition of any special conditions of probation."Glover v. State, 247 Ga. App. 789, 790 (S.E.2d) (2001) (Glover III). However, that is a misinterpretation of the holding inGlover II because, if the statute did not authorize the imposition of any special conditions, it would be meaningless.