O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-21-110 (2019)

Constitutional authority for enactment of article

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article is enacted pursuant to Article III, Section VI, Paragraph VI, subparagraph (f) of the Constitution of Georgia, which provision authorizes the allocation of funds and a continuing fund for the purpose of compensating innocent victims of crime and for the administration of any law enacted for such purpose.

History

(Code 1981, § 15-21-110, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1836, § 1.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For note on 1992 enactment of this article, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 298 (1992).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Fine improperly imposed. - Since no fine was imposed on the driving under the influence offense that violated O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391, the $100 brain/spinal cord fee imposed under O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-149 and 15-21-150 and the $25 driving under the influence victim surcharge imposed under O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-110 and 15-21-112(a) should not have been imposed under O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-112 and 15-21-149(a) because those fees were contingent upon the imposition of a fine. Johnson v. State, 282 Ga. App. 258, 638 S.E.2d 406 (2006).

Cited in Hannah v. State, 280 Ga. App. 230, 633 S.E.2d 800 (2006).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2006 · leading case: Hannah v. State, 633 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hannah v. State, 633 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “23 See OCGA §§ 15-21-110; 15-21-112 (a) (regarding imposition of fine upon DUI violator and providing that proceeds may be used to compensate innocent victims of crime).”
Johnson v. State, 638 S.E.2d 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 15-21-110; 15-21-112 (a) (regarding imposition of a fine upon DUI violator and providing that proceeds may be used to compensate innocent crime victims).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.