O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-7-3 (2019)

List of children in detention pending trial provided to chief judge and prosecuting attorney

✓ 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

The official in charge of any facility in which a child is detained pending trial in the superior, state, or juvenile courts, including but not limited to sheriffs, regional jail authorities, and the Department of Juvenile Justice, shall furnish at least once a week a list of all children so detained to the chief judge, or his or her designee, and the prosecuting attorney for the court or courts having jurisdiction to adjudicate the case against the child. The list shall include the following information pertaining to each child:

(1) The child’s name;

(2) The date of arrest;

(3) The offense charged or other reason for being held;

(4) The amount of the bond, if known; and

(5) Whether the child is represented by an attorney and, if represented, the name of the attorney.

History

Code 1981, § 17-7-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 172, § 1/SB 135.

ARTICLE 2 COMMITMENT HEARINGS

Annotations

Cross references. - Committal hearings in magistrate court, Uniform Rules for the Magistrate Courts, Rule 25. JUDICIAL DECISIONS There is no federal constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. Pitts v.

Hopper, 402 F. Supp. 119 (N.D. Ga. 1974), aff ’d, 520 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1975).

Preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing. Bridges v. State, 154 Ga. App. 811, 270 S.E.2d 60 (1980); Clarke v. State, 158 Ga. App. 749, 282 S.E.2d 1 (1981). Denial of commitment hearing basis for overturning conviction. - Court of Appeals will not overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied the appellant. Bridges v.

State, 154 Ga. App. 811, 270 S.E.2d 60 (1980). In no event will a conviction be overturned on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied appellant. Clarke v. State, 158 Ga. App. 749, 282 S.E.2d 1 (1981). After indictment and subsequent conviction, lack of a commitment hearing will not be construed as reversible error. Clarke v. State, 158 Ga. App. 749, 282 S.E.2d 1 (1981). Cited in Moye v. Georgia, 330 F. Supp. 290 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Bail of person arrested by campus police officer. - Person arrested by a campus police officer for violation of a state criminal law should be incarcerated in the county jail, as the sheriff, by virtue

of that office, is the county jailer. Whether the accused is to be admitted to bail and the amount of the bail are matters which are addressed to the commitment court. 1970 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 70-69.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 69 et seq. 53 Am. Jur. 2d, Mentally Impaired Persons, § 22 et seq. C.J.S. - 16D C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 2167.

ALR. - Right of person accused of crime to exclude public from preliminary hearing or examination, 31 A.L.R.3d 816.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Lori Belinda Hicks (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Lori Belinda Hicks (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “27 26 OCGA § 17-7-3 (11). 27 See OCGA § 17-14-2 (2).”
Durwin Logan v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 17-7-3. 7 2. Logan’s remaining enumerations seek redress for alleged transgressions by the State during the trial on Indictment II.”
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.