O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-12-51 (2019)

Repayment of attorney’s fees as condition of probation

✓ 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) When a defendant who is represented by a public defender, who is paid in part or in whole by a county, enters a plea of nolo contendere, first offender, or guilty or is otherwise convicted, the court may impose as a condition of probation repayment of all or a portion of the cost for providing legal representation and other expenses of the defense if the payment does not impose a financial hardship upon the defendant or the defendant’s dependent or dependents. The defendant shall make the payment through the community supervision officer to the county. (b) When a defendant who is represented by a public defender, who is paid in part or in whole by a municipality, enters a plea of nolo contendere, first offender, or guilty or is otherwise convicted, the court may impose as a condition of probation repayment of all or a portion of the cost for providing legal representation and other expenses of the defense if the payment does not impose a financial hardship upon the defendant or the defendant’s dependent or dependents. The defendant shall make the payment through the community supervision officer to the municipality. (c) If a defendant who is represented by a public defender, who is paid for entirely by the state, enters a plea of nolo contendere, first offender, or guilty or is otherwise convicted, the court may impose as a condition of probation repayment of all or a portion of the cost for providing legal representation and other costs of the defense if the payment does not impose a financial hardship upon such defendant or such defendant’s dependent or dependents. Such defendant shall make such payment through the community supervision officer to the Georgia Public Defender Council for payment to the general fund of the state treasury. (d) In determining whether or not a payment imposed under this Code section imposes a financial hardship upon a defendant or defendant’s dependent or dependents and in determining the amount of the payment to impose, the court shall consider the factors set forth in Code Section 17-14-10. The public defender may provide the court with an estimate of the cost for providing to the defendant the legal representation and other expenses of the defense. If requested by the defendant, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount to be paid. (e) This Code section shall not apply to a disposition involving a child pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 15, relating to juvenile proceedings.

History

Code 1981, § 17-12-51, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 710, § 6/SB 203; Ga. L. 2008, p. 846, § 40/HB 1245; Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 5-34/HB 310; Ga. L. 2015, p. 519, § 7-12/HB 328.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not codified by the General

Assembly, provides, in part, that this Act shall apply to sentences entered on or after July 1, 2015. Law reviews. - For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Legislative intent. - Defendant sentenced in 2005 for conduct occurring in 2004 was properly required to reimburse a county for court-appointed attorney fees; the Georgia Supreme Court held that such authority was inherent in a trial court’s

broad sentencing powers and that O.C.G.A. § 17-12-51(a), which was enacted in 2006, indicated some legislative intent to authorize imposition of such a condition. Pless v. State, 286 Ga. App. 235, 648 S.E.2d 752 (2007).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: ALLEN v. DAKER (& Vice Versa), 858 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ALLEN v. DAKER (& Vice Versa), 858 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 8× “OCGA §§ 17-12-51 (a) (authorizing trial courts to impose, as a condition of probation, repayment of costs for providing legal representation and other defense expenses paid for by a municipality, a county, or the state, if the payment does not impose a hardship upon the…”

State v. Pless, 646 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 17-12-51 (a)-(c). But our conclusion that the trial court retained the general authority to order reimbursement of attorney fees during the period from 2003 to 2006 is derived from authority of this Court granting broad powers to sentencing courts under OCGA § 42-8-35,…”

Josh Martin v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 10× “13 OCGA § 17-12-51 (a)7 provides that [w]hen a defendant who is represented by a public defender, who is paid in part or in whole by a county, enters a plea of nolo contendere, first offender, or guilty or is otherwise convicted, the court may impose as a condition of probation…”

Travis C. White v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 17-12-51 (a). However, in assessing such fees, a trial court must first determine whether or not the payment imposed would create a financial hardship on the defendant.”

Pless v. State, 648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court determined that a new statute passed in the 2006 Georgia General Assembly (OCGA § 17-12-51 (a); see Ga. L. 2006, p. 710, § 6), which did not become effective until some weeks after the issuance of our opinion (and which was certainly not in effect at the time…”

— 17-12-51(a) — 1 case

State v. Pless, 646 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 2007). “OCGA § 17-12-51 (a)-(c). But our conclusion that the trial court retained the general authority to order reimbursement of attorney fees during the period from 2003 to 2006 is derived from authority of this Court granting broad powers to sentencing courts under OCGA § 42-8-35,…”

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.