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

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6 (2019)

Review of sentences of imprisonment for period exceeding 12 years by three-judge panel

✓ 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

Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 2007, p. 595, § 2/HB 197, effective July 1, 2007.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - This Code section was based on Code 1933, § 27-2511.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 352, § 8; Ga. L. 1977, p. 1098, § 6; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1271, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1993, p. 705, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 10.

Ga. L. 2007, p. 595, § 5/HB 197, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the repeal of this Code section shall apply to all trials which occur on or after July 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 663 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 663 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 120× “Moseley filed suit against the Panel and its Administrator, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (Department), and the Chairman and individual members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) (collectively referred to hereinafter as Appellants), seeking…”
Moseley v. Sentence Review Panel, 631 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 92× “Because Moseley's complaint does not seek enforcement of the Panel's performance of its public duties, but challenges the validity of the public duties that the General Assembly has authorized it to exercise, the trial court correctly found that he lacked standing under OCGA §…”
Benefield v. State Ex Rel. Baker, 575 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. 2003). · cites it 20× “Benefield, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-10-6, which creates the three-judge Sentence Review Panel (Panel).”
Casey Bridges v. Curtis Johnson, 284 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 7× “He did not appeal his convictions and sentences, but he did request that his sentence be reviewed by a sentence review panel, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6. He applied to the sentence review panel in December 1996, and the panel denied his application on June 13, 1997.”
Southall v. State, 796 S.E.2d 261 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “789, 795 (10) (f) ( 642 SE2d 67 ) (2007) (defendant not prejudiced when his lawyer prematurely filed a motion for sentence review that was required to be made “within 30 days” under former OCGA § 17-10-6 (a) (repealed in 2007)). This Court’s reasoning in Gillen applies equally…”
McClendon v. State, 734 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 26× “The trial court found that the Review Panel lacked subject matter jurisdiction over McClendon’s application in 2002 because it was not filed within the 30-day filing limitation provision in former OCGA § 17-10-6 (a), and that there was no evidence in the record that McClendon…”
Belcher v. State, 697 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “(ii) Belcher argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because the prosecutor and trial court incorrectly advised him that he could *649 apply for sentence review by a three-judge panel pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-6 (2006). 2 We are not persuaded.”
Brown v. State, 529 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× ““We will not review for legal error any sentence which is within the statutory limits.”
FEW v. State, 716 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “1 At the time of Few’s sentencing, OCGA § 17-10-6 authorized him to seek review of his sentence by a three-judge panel vested with the authority to reduce the sentence imposed.”
Worley v. State, 454 S.E.2d 461 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 17-10-6; Williams v. State, 208 Ga.”
Stephens v. State, 456 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 17-10-6. Of course, the General Assembly could find other ways to address the problems posed by OCGA § 16-13-30(d).”
Vaughn v. State, 680 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “He signed an “Affidavit — Plea of Guilty” form in connection with that plea, which informed him, inter alia, that he had a right to have his sentence reviewed by a three-judge sentence review panel under then-existing OCGA § 17-10-6. Sentencing on the plea was postponed to allow…”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— 17-10-6(a) — 8 cases
Casey Bridges v. Curtis Johnson, 284 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2002). “He did not appeal his convictions and sentences, but he did request that his sentence be reviewed by a sentence review panel, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6. He applied to the sentence review panel in December 1996, and the panel denied his application on June 13, 1997.”
Moseley v. Sentence Review Panel, 631 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2006). “Because Moseley's complaint does not seek enforcement of the Panel's performance of its public duties, but challenges the validity of the public duties that the General Assembly has authorized it to exercise, the trial court correctly found that he lacked standing under OCGA §…”
Alexander v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 510 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2007).
Alexander v. Sec'y, Dept. of Corr., 523 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2008).
Alexander v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 518 F.3d 878 (11th Cir. 2008).
— 17-10-6(b) — 1 case
Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 663 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2008). “Moseley filed suit against the Panel and its Administrator, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (Department), and the Chairman and individual members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) (collectively referred to hereinafter as Appellants), seeking…”
— 17-10-6(c) — 2 cases
Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 663 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2008). “Moseley filed suit against the Panel and its Administrator, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (Department), and the Chairman and individual members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) (collectively referred to hereinafter as Appellants), seeking…”
Moseley v. Sentence Review Panel, 631 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2006). “Because Moseley's complaint does not seek enforcement of the Panel's performance of its public duties, but challenges the validity of the public duties that the General Assembly has authorized it to exercise, the trial court correctly found that he lacked standing under OCGA §…”
— 17-10-6(d) — 1 case
Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 663 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2008). “Moseley filed suit against the Panel and its Administrator, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (Department), and the Chairman and individual members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) (collectively referred to hereinafter as Appellants), seeking…”
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.