O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-32-6 (2019)

Jurisdiction in marijuana possession cases; retention of fines and bond forfeitures; transfer of cases

✓ 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) The municipal court of any municipality is granted jurisdiction to try and dispose of cases where a person is charged with the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana if the offense occurred within the corporate limits of such municipality. The jurisdiction of any such court shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of any other courts within the county having jurisdiction to try and dispose of such cases.

(b) Any fines and bond forfeitures arising from the prosecution of such cases shall be retained by the municipality and shall be paid into the treasury of such municipality.

(c) Any defendant charged with possession of an ounce or less of marijuana in a municipal court shall be entitled on request to have the case against him or her transferred to the court having general misdemeanor jurisdiction in the county wherein the alleged offense occurred.

(d) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to give any municipality the right to impose a fine or punish by imprisonment in excess of the limits as set forth in the municipality’s charter.

History

Code 1981, § 36-32-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 825, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1377, § 3; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 3-32/HB 233.

Annotations

Cross references. - Purchase, possession, manufacture, distribution, or sale of controlled substances or marijuana, § 16-13-30. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1997, p. 1377, § 4, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘it is the intent of the General Assembly to restore the law of this state to that which was generally understood to be the law prior to the decision of the Court of Appeals in Williams v. State, 222 Ga. App. 698, Case No. A96A1472, decided August 20, 1996, such that posses-

sion of one ounce or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor and the provisions of Code Section 36-32-6 are applicable to such offenses.’’ Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure.’’

Law reviews. - For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Kolker v. State, 391 S.E.2d 391 (Ga. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kolker v. State, 391 S.E.2d 391 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 2× “…has enacted legislation vesting municipal courts with jurisdiction over various state misdemeanor offenses. See OCGA § 36-32-6 (marijuana possession cases involving one ounce or less); OCGA § 36 32-8 (operating a motor vehicle without a certificate of emission inspection…”
Donald Schaeffer, Judge v. Marieo Kearney (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “The superior court granted the petition, reasoning that there was a surviving municipal citation for disorderly conduct-marijuana governed by OCGA § 36-32-6 (c), which provides that “[a]ny defendant charged with possession of an ounce or less of marijuana in a municipal court…”
Corey C. Bass v. Christopher J. Simmons, Officer, Forest Park Police Dept. (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “1 See OCGA § 36-32-6 (a). Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 03/31/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.”
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.