Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §17-10-6.3, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 595, § 3/HB 197; Ga. L. 2013, p. 594, § 2-6/HB 287.)
The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, substituted "Division of Archives and History" for "Department of Archives and History" in the first sentence of subsection (e).
- Ga. L. 2007, p. 595, § 5/HB 197, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Code section shall apply to all trials which occur on or after July 1, 2007.
§ 17-10-6. - Trial court properly ruled that former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6, which authorized the Georgia Sentence Review Panel to review and reduce sentences, was unconstitutional as the Georgia General Assembly did not have the constitutional authority to divest the trial courts of Georgia of their traditional jurisdiction over sentencing by creating a quasi-appellate tribunal (such as the Panel) to review and alter the otherwise lawful sentences imposed by those trial courts. Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 284 Ga. 128, 663 S.E.2d 679 (2008).
§ 17-10-6. - Trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to hold judgment void and reinstating the defendant's 20-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter because the defendant's application for an out-of-time sentence review was granted under former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6(a), thus, the trial court's reinvested subject matter jurisdiction over the question of the sentencing was improper. McClendon v. State, 318 Ga. App. 676, 734 S.E.2d 505 (2012).
§ 17-10-6 not to be applied retroactively. - Trial court erred by holding that the unconstitutionality of former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6 applied retroactively to an inmate whose sentence for voluntary manslaughter was reduced by the Georgia Sentence Review Panel and to other defendants similarly situated as the trial court should have applied the ruling prospectively only. Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 284 Ga. 128, 663 S.E.2d 679 (2008).
- Denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 33.12(A) was proper because the defendant failed to establish that but for defense counsel's failure to inform the defendant of the repeal of former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6, which allowed for a sentence review, the defendant would have insisted on a trial; further, the defendant was aware of the maximum sentence, and the availability of a sentence review did not alter the possibility that the defendant could have potentially been required to serve up to 66 years in prison. The record supported a finding that the defendant entered the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Vaughn v. State, 298 Ga. App. 669, 680 S.E.2d 680 (2009).
Cited in Askew v. State, 318 Ga. App. 454, 734 S.E.2d 222 (2012).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-07-07
Citation: 663 S.E.2d 679, 284 Ga. 128, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2299, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 567
Snippet: disposition of all pending matters. The new OCGA § 17-10-6.3 (a) reads as follows: As used in this Code section