O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-14-15 (2019)

Peonage not authorized by article; denial of benefits because of poverty prohibited

✓ 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) Nothing in this article shall authorize peonage; and this article shall be construed and diligently administered to prevent peonage. (b) No offender shall be denied any benefit, relief, or privilege to which he or she might otherwise be entitled or eligible solely because he or she is financially unable and cannot become financially able to make restitution.

History

Code 1933, § 27-3016, 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 Refusal of plea bargain upon inability to make restitution. - State’s refusal to recommend acceptance of the plea bargain because the defendant could not make the agreed-upon initial restitution payment of $5,000, and the trial court’s refusal to accept the plea, did not deny the defendant equal protection or violate O.C.G.A. § 17-14-15. Nash v. State, 179 Ga. App. 702, 347 S.E.2d 651 (1986). Sentence requiring defendant to pay restitution while incarcerated held illegal. - Because that part of a

sentence requiring the defendant to pay restitution while incarcerated and pay specific and substantial amounts of restitution both before the commencement of the prison sentence and while on probation was illegal, that portion was vacated, and the defendant’s acquiescence to the sentence, either through plea negotiations or a failure to object to the sentence, did not remove the illegality. Sumner v. State, 284 Ga. App. 308, 643 S.E.2d 831 (2007).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2007 · leading case: Nash v. State, 347 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nash v. State, 347 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 20× “Appellant contends the State's refusal to recommend acceptance of the plea bargain because he could not make the agreed-upon initial restitution payment of $5,000, and the trial court's refusal to accept the plea, denied him equal protection and violated OCGA § 17-14-15 (b).…”

Sumner v. State, 643 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “588 ( 436 SE2d 714 ) (1993) and OCGA § 17-14-15 (b) Sumner argues that his sentence is void to the extent he was ordered to pay restitution while he was incarcerated.”

Simmons v. Coweta Cnty., 494 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “799 ( 39 SE 508 ) (1901); OCGA §§ 17-14-15; 42-5-60 (a) and (e). Further, the State paid Coweta County to feed, house, and guard State prisoners, including plaintiff, which does not come within the plain meaning of the exclusion under this CGIP, because such terms are not…”

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.