O.C.G.A. § 17-12-24 (2019)
Financial eligibility for indigent defense services representation; operation of public defender’s office
(a) The circuit public defender, any other person or entity providing indigent defense services, or the system established pursuant to Code Section 17-12-80 shall determine if a person or juvenile arrested, detained, or charged in any manner is an indigent person entitled to representation under this chapter.
(b) The circuit public defenders shall administer and coordinate the day-to-day operations of their respective offices and shall supervise the assistant public defenders and other staff serving in the office.
(c) The circuit public defender shall keep and maintain appropriate records, which shall include the number of persons represented, including cases assigned to other counsel based on conflict of interest; the offenses charged; the outcome of each case; the expenditures made in carrying out the duties imposed by this chapter; and any other information requested by the council.
History
Code 1981, § 17-12-24, enacted by Ga. L. 2003, p. 191, § 1; Ga. L.
2006, p. 752, § 7/SB 503; Ga. L. 2008, p. 846, § 31/HB 1245.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code Section 17-12-2 are included in the annotations for this Code Section. ‘‘Indigent person.’’ - If defendant retains trial counsel and then claims indigence on appeal, the defendant bears the burden of making that fact known to the trial court or some responsible state official. Seay v. State, 220 Ga. App. 418, 469 S.E.2d 496 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-12-2). Because the trial court did not hold a plea withdrawal hearing and did not make a record of the court’s determination of the defendant’s indigency for appeal, the appellate court could not determine if
the trial court abused the court’s discretion or followed the procedures of former O.C.G.A. §§ 17-12-2(5), 17-12-32, 17-12-4(a) and Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 29.2, 29.3, 29.5. Schlau v. State, 261 Ga. App. 303, 582 S.E.2d 243 (2003). Defendant failed to show that the trial court abused the court’s discretion in determining that the defendant was not entitled to a transcript free of charge and, contrary to the defendant’s claim, the trial court was not required as a matter of law to follow the public defender’s determination of indigence for that purpose. Roberson v. State, 335 Ga. App. 606, 782 S.E.2d 671 (2016), aff ’d, 300 Ga. 632, 797 S.E.2d 104 (2017).