O.C.G.A.
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.
It is declared to be the policy of this state that restitution to their victims by those found guilty of crimes or adjudicated as having committed delinquent acts is a primary concern of the criminal justice system and the juvenile justice system.
History
Code 1933, § 27-3001, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1382, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 88, § 5/HB 172.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2005, p. 88,
§ 1/HB 172, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005.’ ’’
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Written findings no longer required. - Under O.C.G.A. § 17-14-1 et seq., written findings are no longer required when ordering an offender to make restitution; as a result, Garrett v. State, 175 Ga. App. 400, 333 SE2d 432 (1985), and its progeny, are disapproved to the extent those cases were authority for any cases involving restitution orders issued on or after July 1, 2005, the effective date of the Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005, O.C.G.A. § 17-14-1 et seq. McCart v. State, 289 Ga. App. 830, 658 S.E.2d 465 (2008). Restitution damages proper. - Under preponderance of evidence standard, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in concluding that the defen-
dant caused the $5,306.28 in damages to a stolen truck since the defendant was found in possession of the truck, and therefore the defendant was responsible for all damages that the truck incurred; as a result, the trial court properly ordered the defendant to pay a judgment of restitution in the amount of $5,306.28. McCart v. State, 289 Ga. App. 830, 658 S.E.2d 465 (2008). Cited in Shelton v. State, 161 Ga. App. 524, 289 S.E.2d 768 (1982); Murphy v. State, 182 Ga. App. 791, 357 S.E.2d 147 (1987); Jackson v. State, 198 Ga. App. 261, 401 S.E.2d 289 (1990); Fuller v. State, 244 Ga. App. 618, 536 S.E.2d 296 (2000); In the Interest of D. D., 335 Ga. App. 676, 782 S.E.2d 728 (2016).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Agreement to pay restitution exceeding victim’s damages. - Sentencing court may not require an offender to make restitution on those counts of a multi-count indictment which are dismissed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement; however, if an offender voluntarily agrees to make restitution in a certain amount, even if such amount exceeds the victim’s ‘‘damages,’’ the sentenc-
ing court may incorporate that agreement into the court’s restitution order. 1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-19. Bail bondsman is entitled to restitution of the amount of the bond and costs upon the conviction of the accused of jumping bail pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-10-51. 1994 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U94-17.
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Mandatory victims restitution act - constitutional issues, 20 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 239.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases, 1985–2016 · leading case:
Garrett v. State, 333 S.E.2d 432 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
Garrett v. State, 333 S.E.2d 432 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “This device, by which Georgia’s declared public policy of requiring criminals to make “restitution to their victims,” OCGA § 17-14-1, has the salubrious effect of serving judicial economy and saving as well the time and costs and repeated court appearances which would burden all…”
Jackson v. State, 552 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The law governing restitution to victims of crime needs to be uncoupled from the technical requirements of proving damages in civil lawsuits if the courts are to carry out the public policy declared by the legislature: OCGA § 17-14-1. "Declaration of Public Policy.”
McCart v. State, 658 S.E.2d 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “88, §§ 1, 8; OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq. In that Act, the General Assembly substantially revised the former Code and repealed all conflicting laws.”
Harris v. State, 413 S.E.2d 439 (Ga. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Although OCGA § 17-14-1 states restitution is a primary concern of the criminal justice system, the state has other concerns of equal importance, including punishing and rehabilitating persons convicted of crimes and deterring others from criminal behavior.”
Cardwell v. State, 484 S.E.2d 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “A restitution hearing was held pursuant to OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq. at which two of the four victims testified.”
Dorsey v. State, 426 S.E.2d 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Lastly, both appellants enumerate as error the trial court’s award of restitution to the victim as a condition of probation pursuant to OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq. Specifically, they first contend that the victim’s damages were not proximately caused by appellants’ criminal acts.”
Isaac v. State, 516 S.E.2d 575 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In his first enumeration of error, Isaac contends the trial court erred in requiring him to pay restitution without holding a hearing or making findings of fact as required by OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq. In Radford v. State, 223 Ga.”
Harper v. City of East Point, 515 S.E.2d 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “This may have been the only achievable remedy against him for such a terrible ordeal at the hands of a public servant.”
Harris v. State, 410 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “As stated above, restitution is an economic recovery, a transfer of value from one who has caused injury or damages to one who suffered the same as a result.”
Lomax v. State, 407 S.E.2d 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-14-1. “The amount of restitution ordered may be equal to or less than, but not more than, the victim’s damages.”
Elsasser v. State, 722 S.E.2d 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The statutory framework for restitution in criminal cases is not found in the tort statutes, but is set forth in OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq., and the factors that a court must consider in determining the amount of restitution are found in OCGA § 17-14-10.”
Parker v. State, 741 S.E.2d 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “We *324 therefore vacate the order of restitution and remand for a hearing on the matter in accordance with OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq. Decided March 13, 2013.”
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.