O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 42-6-2 (2019)

When detainers to be accepted and filed by department

✓ 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 department shall accept and file only those detainers which meet the requirements of this article and which are filed in accordance with this article; provided, however, this article shall not apply to detainers filed by the authorities of the United States government or of any of the other several states or of any foreign state.

History

Ga. L. 1968, p. 1110, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Authority. - Defendant’s motion for bond was properly denied because a purported detainer did not meet the requirements in O.C.G.A. § 42-6-2, did not constitute arrest and confinement of the defendant, did not require the present-

ment of the charges to a grand jury within 90 days, and did not entitle the defendant to automatic bail under O.C.G.A. § 17-750. Denson v. State, 317 Ga. App. 456, 731 S.E.2d 130, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 733 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2012 · leading case: Denson v. State, 731 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Denson v. State, 731 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Pretermitting whether a properly filed detainer could constitute an “arrest” and “confinement” for the crimes for which the detainer was issued, we reject Denson’s contention that the purported detainer in this case had that effect, because we find that, under OCGA § 42-6-2, the…”
Billy Denson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Pretermitting whether a properly filed detainer could constitute an “arrest” and “confinement” for the crimes for which the detainer was issued, we reject Denson’s contention that the purported detainer in this case had that effect, because we find that, under OCGA § 42-6-2, the…”
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.