CopyCited 36 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 27, 2012 | 723 S.E.2d 876, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 587
...J., and Hines, J., who concur in judgment only.
The GPDSC is the agency created under the 2003 Georgia Indigent Defense Act to oversee the provision of effective and uniform indigent defense on a statewide basis. See Ga. L. 2003, p. 191, § 1; OCGA §§
17-12-1 to
17-12-13. The capital defender’s division is responsible for providing indigent defense in death penalty cases in the State. OCGA §
17-12-12 (a).
The Office of the Georgia Capital Defender was the predecessor to the capital defender division of the GPDSC. See OCGA §
17-12-12 (a). See also OCGA §§
17-12-120 to
17-12-128 (repealed effective July 1, 2008, see Ga....
...he county to assist in funding the defense. See Ga. Public Defender Standards Council v. State,
285 Ga. 169, 172-173 (675 SE2d 25) (2009) (Indigent Defense Act requires State, not county, to fund death penalty defense for indigents). See also OCGA §§
17-12-12,
17-12-12.1.
Indeed, testimony at the August 2008 hearing from the director of the capital defender division indicated that, absent the various budget directives, the GPDSC would likely have approved the travel request in its entirety.
At the rema...
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 4, 2007 | 282 Ga. 58, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 1747
...[1] In so doing, the Court of Appeals reversed the restitution portion of the sentence holding that the trial court was without legal authority to order reimbursement of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals set forth the rationale for its ruling, as follows: "the governing statute [former OCGA §
17-12-10(c) which expressly allowed a court to order reimbursement of attorney fees] was struck prior to trial and its replacement [Georgia Indigent Defense Act of 2003, OCGA §
17-12-1 et seq., effective December 31, 2003] does not contain any provisions authorizing a trial court to order a defendant to reimburse his court-appointed attorney fees." Pless, supra at 804(6),
633 S.E.2d 340....
...Larocque,
268 Ga. 352,
489 S.E.2d 806 (1997) (in order to preserve a point of error for review, counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time); Fair v. State,
281 Ga.App. 518(2),
636 S.E.2d 712 (2006). [3] Although former OCGA §
17-12-10(c) expressly allowed a trial court to order reimbursement to the county for the costs of a court-appointed attorney when a defendant is able to pay such costs, that provision was eliminated with enactment of the Georgia Indigent Defense Act of 2003, effective January 1, 2004. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that OCGA §
17-12-10(c) was no longer in effect at the time of Pless' sentencing on May 17, 2005; nonetheless, the court went on to conclude that repeal of the specific statute absolutely extinguished the trial *204 court's authority to order reimbursement of the costs of legal representation....
...
42-8-35] and associated court decisions," Pless, supra at 809,
633 S.E.2d 340, but nonetheless declined to validate that authority. Pless argues that the legislative intent to eliminate the authority must be presumed in light of the deletion of OCGA §
17-12-10(c) from the 2003 Act....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 27, 1992 | 262 Ga. 11, 43 Fulton County D. Rep. 17
...tion prohibiting the judges from requiring her to represent any individuals and from incarcerating her for her refusal to participate in the Program. The Program receives state funding and was established under the Georgia Criminal Justice Act, OCGA §
17-12-1 et seq., the Georgia Indigent Defense Act, OCGA §
17-12-30 et seq....
...[T]he law of this state has, since 1953, mandated local compensation for counsel appointed in capital felony cases, Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 478; OCGA § 17-12-60 et seq., and since 1968, in all indigent cases, Ga. L. 1968, p. 999, as amended, Ga. L. 1974, p. 1100; OCGA §
17-12-1 et seq....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2021 | 311 Ga. 135
...THE STATE.
MELTON, Chief Justice.
We granted interlocutory review in this case1 to decide whether
the trial court erred in determining that an indigent defendant in a
criminal case who is represented by private, pro bono counsel has
neither a statutory right under the Indigent Defense Act of 2003,
OCGA §
17-12-1 et seq....
...Did the trial court err in holding that an indigent defendant
in a criminal case who is represented by private, pro bono
counsel does not have a constitutional right or a statutory right
under the Indigent Defense Act, OCGA §
17-12-1 et seq., to state-
funded experts and investigators?
After receiving the parties’ briefs, as well as briefs from amici curiae, we
requested oral argument and posed two additional questions:
Does an indigent defendant ha...
...chose to forgo representation by state-funded counsel.
(a) Indigency under the IDA.
First, we review the trial court’s ruling on Duke’s indigent
status. The IDA establishes the GPDC as “an independent agency
within the executive branch of state government,” OCGA §
17-12-1
(b), that is “responsible for assuring that adequate and effective
legal representation is provided . . . to indigent persons who are
entitled to representation under this chapter.” OCGA §
17-12-1 (c).
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA §
17-12-2 (6) (C) defines an “indigent
10
defendant” for purposes of the IDA as
[a] person charged with a felony who earns or, in the case
of a juvenile, w...
...defenders to
contract with outside counsel and then provide ancillary service
funding to indigent defendants represented by such attorneys. The
IDA expressly requires the GPDC to contract with conflict attorneys
in death penalty cases. See OCGA §
17-12-12.1....
...beyond those specified in the statute. See, e.g., with all emphases
supplied, OCGA §§
17-12-6 (a) (1) (“The [GPDC] may assist public
defenders throughout the state . . . [with t]he preparation and
distribution of a basic defense manual and other educational
materials”);
17-12-10.2 (“The members of the [GPDC] as created by
this article, the members of the circuit public defender supervisory
panel created by Article 2 of this chapter, and other policy-making
18
or administrativ...
...nflict
counsel or capital defenders. See, e.g., with emphases supplied
OCGA §§
17-12-5 (b) (1);
17-12-6 (a) (3) (explaining that the GPDC
may help in “[t]he promotion of and assistance in the training of
indigent defense attorneys”);
17-12-11 (b) (providing “the circuit
public defender or other attorney who represented the indigent person
at the time of the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity” the
19
option to continue represent...
...as “the fiscal officer for the
21
its own employees and the circuit public defenders and their
employees, but also through contracts with outside counsel and
ancillary service providers. See, e.g., OCGA §§
17-12-12.1;
17-12-28;
17-12-29;
17-12-31 (a)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 9, 2009 | 285 Ga. 169, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 763
...ven prior to January 1, 2005. Palmer was again convicted and sentenced to death, and Attorneys submitted a final bill for $68,946.61. On August 24, 2007, the trial court ordered the Council to pay Attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to former OCGA §
17-12-127(b), which read as follows: If for any reason the [O]ffice [of the Georgia Capital Defender] is unable to defend any indigent person accused of a capital felony for which the death penalty is being sought, the presiding judge of the super...
...e by the [Capital Defender].... Ga. L.2003, pp. 191, 217, § 1. This code section was part of Article 6 of Chapter 12 of Title 17. That Article created the Office of the Georgia Capital Defender and became "effective on January 1, 2005." Former OCGA §
17-12-128 (Ga.L.2003, pp. 191, 217, § 1). We note that Article 6 was repealed in 2008 when the Office was succeeded by the capital defender division of the Council, but comparable provisions are now found in OCGA §§
17-12-12 and
17-12-12.1. Ga. L.2008, pp. 846, 865-867, 873, §§ 26, 27, 42. The trial court held that former OCGA §
17-12-127(b) did not expressly exclude reimbursement by the Council where, as here, the defendant was indicted prior to January 1, 2005 and his attorneys were appointed after that date....
...[Cits.] However, this Code section was only effective until January 1, 2005, following establishment of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council. [Cits.] Fulton County v. State,
282 Ga. 570, 572(3),
651 S.E.2d 679 (2007). The Council was established by the Georgia Indigent Defense Act of 2003, OCGA §
17-12-1 et seq....
...the Council the responsibility "for assuring that adequate and effective legal representation is provided, independently of political considerations or private interests, to indigent persons who are entitled to representation under [the Act]." OCGA §
17-12-1(c). See also Alison Couch, Criminal Procedure, 20 Ga. St. U.L.Rev. 105 (2003). The Council argues that former OCGA §
17-12-124 contemplated only contemporaneous or future indictments and future death penalty notices because it required the Capital Defender to submit "a proposed budget for representation of all indigent persons accused of a capital felony for which the death penalty is or is likely to be sought." Ga....
...ny restriction or limitation as to cases pending on the effective date of the act"). Compare Nickerson v. State,
287 Ga.App. 617, 618-619(1),
652 S.E.2d 208 (2007) (clause involving effective date expressly provided for pending cases); former OCGA §§
17-12-108,
17-12-127.1 (Ga....
...191, 215, § 1; Ga. L.2004, pp. 631, 636, § 17(11)) (dealing only with continued representation by and payment to attorneys appointed pursuant to former Article 5, which temporarily created the office of the multicounty public defender). Furthermore, former OCGA §
17-12-127(b) explicitly tied payment with Council funds to appointment of defense counsel pursuant to that subsection. Thus, in this case, the fact that Attorneys were appointed after the effective date of former OCGA §
17-12-127(b) indicates that their payment is governed by that statute rather than preexisting law. Compare State v. Crittenden County, 320 Ark. 356, 896 S.W.2d 881, 884(I) (1995). Moreover, payment was expressly promised to come from the conflict funds which are the subject of former OCGA §
17-12-127(b)....
...e to the Office, and the Director was authorized to hire those staff employees and contract with outside consultants on behalf of the Council as may have been necessary to provide the services contemplated by the Act. Former OCGA §§
17-12-5(b)(3),
17-12-123(4) (Ga.L.2003, pp. 191, 197, 216, § 1). Even if Mr. Mears was not authorized to hire Attorneys and promise payment, former OCGA §
17-12-127(b) placed ultimate responsibility on the trial court for the appointment of counsel due to a conflict of interest in a death penalty case....
...viction is overturned by a habeas court. Accordingly, both the statutory language of the Act and its underlying policy compel the conclusion that, in this case, the Council is responsible for payment of indigent defense costs pursuant to former OCGA §
17-12-127(b). The indigent defense budgetary considerations raised by the Council do not constitute a proper policy matter for this Court. Moreover, the Council has not shown how those considerations would weigh in favor of its interpretation of former OCGA §
17-12-127(b), because whoever must fund indigent defense in particular death penalty cases, whether it be the individual county or the State acting through the Council, will be required to consider the potential for retrials in budgeting for the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. Because former Article 6 took effect prior to the appointment of Attorneys, application of former OCGA §
17-12-127(b) clearly does not violate the prohibition on the State's assumption of prior debts, as set forth in the Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 7, 2018
...further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
1. Because Putnal is indigent, the capital defender division of the
Georgia Public Defender Council (“Council”) represents him, as provided
under the Indigent Defense Act. See OCGA §§
17-12-1;
17-12-12 (a). That
act also requires the State to fund the costs of obtaining expert assistance for
indigent capital defendants. See OCGA §
17-12-12.1 (c) (providing that the
Council, “with the assistance of the Georgia capital defender division, shall
establish guidelines for all expense requests for cases in which the death
penalty is sought,” including, but not limited to, expert and investigative fees);
Phan v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 7, 2018
...d this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. Because Putnal is indigent, the capital defender division of the Georgia Public Defender Council ("Council") represents him, as provided under the Indigent Defense Act. See OCGA §§
17-12-1 ;
17-12-12 (a). That act also requires the State to fund the costs of obtaining expert assistance for indigent capital defendants. See OCGA §
17-12-12.1 (c) (providing that the Council, "with the assistance of the Georgia capital defender division, shall establish guidelines for all expense requests for cases in which the death penalty is sought," including, but not limited to, expert and investigative fees); Phan v....
