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

O.C.G.A. § 17-1-1 (2019)

Filing and service of pleadings, motions, and other papers

✓ 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) Unless otherwise provided by law or by order of the court, every pleading subsequent to the entry of the initial indictment or accusation upon which the defendant is to be tried; every order not entered in open court; every written motion, unless it is one as to which a hearing ex parte is authorized; and every written notice, demand, and similar paper shall be served upon each party. (b)(1) Where service is required to be made, the service shall be made upon the party’s attorney unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to him or by mailing it to him at his last known address or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court. (2) As used in this subsection, delivering a copy means: (A) Handing it to the attorney or to the party; (B) Leaving it at his office with his clerk or other person in charge thereof; or (C) If the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. (3) Service by mail shall be deemed complete upon mailing. (c) All original papers, copies of which are required to be served upon parties, shall be filed with the court either before service or immediately thereafter.

(d) The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court unless the judge permits the papers to be filed with him, in which event he shall note thereon the filing date and transmit them to the office of the clerk. (e)(1) Proof of service may be made by certificate of an attorney or of his employee, written admission, affidavit, or other proof satisfactory to the court. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of service. (2) When an attorney executes a certificate, which shall be attached to the original of the paper to be served, certifying as to the service thereof, the certificate shall be taken as prima-facie proof of such service. (3) The certificate of service provided for in this subsection shall read substantially as follows: Certificate of Service I do certify that (copy) (copies) hereof have been furnished to (here insert name or names) by (delivery) (mail) this day of , . Attorney

History

Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 8; Ga. L. 1999, p. 81, § 17.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article surveying criminal law and procedure in 1984-1985,

see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 179 (1985). For annual survey of criminal law and procedure, see 40 Mercer L. Rev. 153 (1988).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS ‘‘Similar paper’’ defined. - Copies of indictments and appropriate responses to constitutionally and statutorily authorized discovery requests constitute ‘‘similar paper’’ under O.C.G.A. § 17-1-1(a) and, consequently, must be served upon a defendant and not merely furnished to the defendant by notifying the defendant of the presence of the documents in the clerk’s office. Driver v. State, 188 Ga. App. 301, 372 S.E.2d 841 (1988). Timely filing of service. - There was no authority indicating that untimely filing negated service and notice of the state’s witness list in a felony case, especially since service was not disputed. Carter v. State, 253 Ga. App. 795, 560 S.E.2d 697 (2002). Service by mail. - When it is undisputed that service of notice is properly

made by mail in accordance with the statutory provisions, actual notice is not required, and it is immaterial that the notice was not received. Stubbs v. State, 202 Ga. App. 670, 415 S.E.2d 486 (1992). Notice under O.C.G.A. § 17-10-2 sent to defense attorney held sufficient. - Trial court did not err in imposing a life sentence against the defendant as: (1) the state satisfied the notice requirement under O.C.G.A. § 17-10-2(a) by providing notice to the defendant’s attorney; (2) the appeals court presumed that such information was communicated to the defendant; and (3) the defendant failed to contend otherwise. Blevins v. State, 283 Ga. App. 694, 642 S.E.2d 373 (2007). Service on state by pro se defendant. - When a pro se defendant filed

tion to correct alleged clerical errors in the court’s records of defendant’s sentence, failure of the defendant to provide the state with notice or the opportunity made the court’s order a nullity. Prater v. State, 222 Ga. App. 486, 474 S.E.2d 684 (1996). Cited in State v. Bostwick, 181 Ga. App. 508, 352 S.E.2d 824 (1987); Devane v. State, 183 Ga. App. 60, 357 S.E.2d 819 (1987); Jones v. State, 185 Ga. App. 649, 366 S.E.2d 144 (1988); Cabell v. State, 250 Ga. App. 530, 551 S.E.2d 386 (2001); Patten v. State, 250 Ga. App. 498, 552 S.E.2d 110 (2001); Collins v. State, 338 Ga. App. 886, 792 S.E.2d 134 (2016); Putnal v. State, 303 Ga. 569, 814 S.E.2d 307 (2018); Schuman v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 354 Ga. App. 509, 841 S.E.2d 218 (2020).

motions to suppress, those motions which the defendant failed to serve on the state could not be considered, and any order which would have been entered as a result of those motions would have been of no effect. Owens v. State, 258 Ga. App. 647, 575 S.E.2d 14 (2002). Prosecutorial immunity. - District attorney’s failure to serve arrestee or arrestee’s counsel with a copy of a motion and order resulting in the dead-docketing of charges, while not involving the exercise of any prosecutorial discretion or judgment, was intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and therefore within the scope of the district attorney’s absolute prosecutorial immunity. Holsey v. Hind, 189 Ga. App. 656, 377 S.E.2d 200 (1988). In a proceeding on an ex parte mo-

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Power of private citizen to institute criminal proceedings without au-

thorization or approval by prosecuting attorney, 90 A.L.R.6th 385.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Holsey v. Hind, 377 S.E.2d 200 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holsey v. Hind, 377 S.E.2d 200 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 38× “The appellant contends that the district attorney's office was under a statutory duty pursuant to OCGA § 17-1-1 to serve him or his attorney with a copy of the motion and order dead-docketing the charges but that it was the appellee's custom and practice not to require his…”
Hood v. Carsten, 481 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 8× “Upon remittitur and after notice to Hood in compliance with OCGA § 17-1-1, the trial court is authorized to hold a hearing to revoke Hood's bond should the State so move.”
In re Whittle, 793 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See generally OCGA § 17-1-1 et seq. See OCGA § 17-16-4 (providing for the mutual disclosure of evidence by the prosecution and defendants); see also State v.”
Driver v. State, 372 S.E.2d 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 12× “The question presented is the means the district attorney may use to fulfill his constitutional and statutory duty to “furnish” the defendant with a copy of the indictment and the requested list of witnesses.”
Devane v. State, 357 S.E.2d 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 17-1-1 deals with filing and service of pleadings, motions and notices subsequent to the indictment and provides in subsection (b): “service shall be made upon the party’s attorney .”
Carter v. State, 560 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Under OCGA § 17-1-1 (c), “[a]ll original papers, copies of which are required to be served upon parties, shall be filed with the court either before service or immediately thereafter.”
Collins v. the State, 792 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “4 See OCGA § 17-1-1 (a) (service of pleadings upon each party); (b) (manner of service of pleadings); (c) (filing of pleadings with court “either before service or immediately thereafter”); (d) (filing of pleadings accomplished by filing with the clerk of court “unless the judge…”
Williams v. State, 574 S.E.2d 416 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “After hearing evidence, Judge Jenrette denied Williams’ motion, finding that Williams did not serve the State as required under OCGA § 17-1-1 (a) with the demand for speedy trial or the ex parte order permitting the out-of-time demand for speedy *368 trial, and that Williams…”
Stubbs v. State, 415 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “Although appellant is correct that OCGA § 17-1-1 (b) (2) provides that delivery may be made in three ways, none of which was used by the prosecutor in this case, that subsection is inapplicable in this case.”
Stanford v. State, 553 S.E.2d 622 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 8 Although Stanford’s retained counsel claims that he did not receive notice of the State’s intent to use prior convictions, the notice was served properly upon Stanford’s then counsel of record.”
Godbey v. State, 526 S.E.2d 415 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “3 requires that the State provide notice of the prosecution's intent to present evidence of a similar transaction: "The notice shall be in writing, served upon the defendant's counsel, and shall state the transaction, date, county, and the name(s) of the victim(s) for each…”
Jones v. State, 366 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “In the case at bar, the State presented evidence that the required notice was mailed to defendant’s counsel on Friday, February 27, 1987, said date being 10 days prior to March 9, 1987, the date on which the trial was scheduled to commence. However, the record also shows that…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— 17-1-1(b) — 1 case
State v. Gerbert, 467 S.E.2d 177 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
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.