O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-32-9 (2019)

Misdemeanor theft by shoplifting or misdemeanor refund fraud; transfer of cases; penalties; retention of fines and bond forfeitures; reports

✓ 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 is granted jurisdiction to try and dispose of cases in which a person is charged with a misdemeanor theft by shoplifting or misdemeanor refund fraud if the offense occurred within the corporate limits of the municipality. The jurisdiction of 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 person charged in a municipal court with misdemeanor theft by shoplifting or misdemeanor refund fraud shall be entitled upon request to have the case against him or her transferred to the court having general misdemeanor jurisdiction in the county in which the alleged offense occurred. (c)(1) A person convicted in a municipal court of misdemeanor theft by shoplifting shall be punished as provided in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-8-14, provided that nothing in this Code section or Code Section 16-8-14 shall be construed to give any

municipality the right to impose a fine or punishment by imprisonment in excess of the limits as set forth in the municipality’s charter. (2) A person convicted in a municipal court of misdemeanor refund fraud shall be punished as provided in the misdemeanor penalties set forth in Code Section 16-8-14.1, provided that nothing in this Code section or Code Section 16-8-14.1 shall be construed to give any municipality the right to impose a fine or punishment by imprisonment in excess of the limits as set forth in the municipality’s charter. (d) Any fines and bond forfeitures arising from the prosecution of such cases in such municipal court shall be retained by the municipality and shall be paid into the treasury of such municipality. (e) It shall be the duty of the appropriate agencies of the municipality in which an offense under subsection (a) of this Code section is charged to make any reports to the Georgia Crime Information Center required under Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 35.

History

Code 1981, § 36-32-9, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1153, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 188, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 831, § 1; Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 8-14/HB 1176; Ga. L. 2014, p. 404, § 2-3/SB 382; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 3-32/HB 233.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1987, Code Section 36-32-9, as enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1462, § 1, was redesignated as Code Section 36-32-10. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 9-1(a)/HB 1176, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2012, and shall apply to offenses which occur on or after that date. Any offense occurring before July 1, 2012, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense and shall be considered a prior conviction for the purpose of imposing a sentence that provides for a different penalty for a

subsequent conviction for the same type of offense, of whatever degree or level, pursuant to this Act.’’ Ga. L. 2014, p. 404, § 3-1/SB 382, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2014, and shall apply to all conduct occurring on or after such date.’’ 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 2012 amendment of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 290 (2012). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Theft by shoplifting as fingerprintable offense. - O.C.G.A. § 36-23-9 does not require any modification in the designation of theft by shoplift-

ing as an offense for which persons charged with a violation are to be fingerprinted. 1987 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 87-21.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity, construction, and effect of statutes establishing shoplifting or

its equivalent as separate criminal offense, 64 A.L.R.4th 1088.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1990–1990 · 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× “…less); OCGA § 36 32-8 (operating a motor vehicle without a certificate of emission inspection under OCGA § 40-8-161); OCGA § 36-32-9 (a first or second offense of theft by shoplifting under OCGA § 16-8-14, when the property stolen is less than $100); OCGA § 36-32-10 (a first…”

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.