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

O.C.G.A. § 16-9-126 (2019)

Penalty for violations

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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

(a) A violation of this article, other than a violation of Code Section 16-9-121.1 or 16-9-122, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or both. Any person who commits such a violation for the second or any subsequent offense shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, or both. (a.1) A violation of Code Section 16-9-121.1 shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, or both, and such sentence shall run consecutively to any other sentence which the person has received. (b) A violation of this article which does not involve the intent to commit theft or appropriation of any property, resource, or other thing of value that is committed by a person who is less than 21 years of age shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years or a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, or both. (c) Any person found guilty of a violation of this article may be ordered by the court to make restitution to any consumer victim or any business victim of such fraud. (d) Each violation of this article shall constitute a separate offense.

(e) Upon a conviction of a violation of this article, the court may issue any order necessary to correct a public record that contains false information resulting from the actions which resulted in the conviction.

History

(Code 1981, § 16-9-125, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 865, § 2; Code 1981, § 16-9-126, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2002, p. 551, § 2; Ga. L. 2007, p. 450, § 6/SB 236; Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, § 5/HB 87.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2007, in subsection (b), a comma was inserted following ‘‘resource’’ and a comma was deleted following ‘‘21 years of age’’. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2002, p. 551, § 2, effective May 2, 2002, redesignated the former provisions of this Code section as Code Section 16-9-127. Ga. L. 2007, p. 450, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Georgia Personal Identity Protection Act.’ ’’ Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, § 1/HB 87, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011.’ ’’ Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, § 21/HB 87, not

codified by the General Assembly, provides for severability, and provides, in part, that: ‘‘(b) The terms of this Act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings consistent with such terms under federal immigration law. ‘‘(c) The provisions of this Act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws governing immigration and civil rights.’’ Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, § 22/HB 87, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the amendment of this Code section shall apply to offenses and violations occurring on or after July 1, 2011. Law reviews. - For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 35 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Imposition of maximum sentence upheld. - Defendant’s identity fraud conviction was upheld on appeal as: (1) a jury charge under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-120(2) was not supported by the evidence; (2) an additional charge on the dictionary definition of fraud as a false representation of a matter of fact did not result in any prejudice; (3) the indictment was sufficient and plainly tracked the language of the identity fraud statute, laid out the elements of

the offense, and allowed the defendant to prepare a defense; (4) the trial court’s imposition of the maximum 10-year sentence was not unlawful; and (5) nothing in the record supported the defendant’s claim that the state engaged in illegal plea bargaining tactics. Lee v. State, 283 Ga. App. 826, 642 S.E.2d 876 (2007). Cited in Summers v. State, 263 Ga. App. 338, 587 S.E.2d 768 (2003).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: Lee v. State, 642 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lee v. State, 642 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Lee complains that the ten-year sentence is unlawful because he was charged with attempted identity fraud under OCGA § 16-9-122, which is expressly excluded from the maximum ten-year sentence by OCGA§ 16-9-126 (a). Lee’s claim is specious since he was not indicted for attempted…”
Summers v. State, 587 S.E.2d 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 16-9-126 (c). Although the 35 counts at issue arguably arose from the same type of conduct — and even from the same course of conduct, common scheme, pattern of behavior or modus operandi, the counts did not all arise from “the same conduct” in the sense of one specific…”
McNair v. State, 757 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “The penalty for identity fraud is up to ten years in prison and/or up to $100,000 in fines, whereas the penalty for financial-transaction-card theft is up to three years in prison and/or up to $5,000 in fines.”
Gaskins v. State, 733 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “…App. 737, 741 (2) ( 665 SE2d 428 ) (2008). Urrutia v. Jewell, 257 Ga. App. 869, 873 (1) ( 572 SE2d 405 ) (2002). See OCGA § 16-9-126 (a) (2006).”
Eddie Champion v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “State that, under the “particular facts of [the] case,” the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the rule of lenity as between the identity fraud statute and financial transaction card theft statute.”
Demetria Gaskins v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “16 See OCGA § 16-9-126 (a) (2006). 9 Judgment affirmed.”
Todd McNair v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Compare OCGA § 16-9-126 (a) with OCGA § 16-9-38 (b).”
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.