O.C.G.A.
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.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Georgia Youthful Offender Act of 1972.”
History
Ga. L. 1972, p. 592, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 420, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Applicability. - Georgia Youthful Offender Act of 1972, O.C.G.A. § 42-7-1 et seq., impacted a sentence and not a conviction. Smith v. State, 266 Ga. App. 111, 596 S.E.2d 230, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 312 (2004). Habeas corpus is available to review constitutional deprivations only. - Habeas applicant’s claim that the sentencing court in the applicant’s statutory rape trial improperly failed to consider the Youthful Offender Act, O.C.G.A.
§ 42-7-1 et seq., when the court sentenced the applicant was not of constitutional dimensions and so was not cognizable in a habeas action. O.C.G.A. § 9-14-42(a) required that there be a substantial denial of the applicant’s constitutional rights, and O.C.G.A. § 42-7-9(a) provided that nothing in the Act affected the power of any court to proceed under other laws. Conley v. Pate, 305 Ga. 333, 825 S.E.2d 135, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 140 (2019).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Treatment under Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (18 USCS §§ 5031-5042) of
juvenile alleged to have violated law of United States, 137 A.L.R. Fed 481.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1983–2019 · leading case:
Conley v. Pate, 825 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. 2019).
Conley v. Pate, 825 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 4× “statutory rape or a conviction for possession of a knife in the commission of a felony; that his sentence of imprisonment for 20 years is in any event so disproportionate to the crime of statutory rape that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment; and that the sentencing…”
Conley v. Pate, 305 Ga. 333 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Last, we turn to the conclusion of the habeas court that the sentencing court improperly failed to consider the Youthful Offender Act, OCGA § 42-7-1 et seq., when it sentenced Pate for aggravated assault.”
Lazenby v. State, 470 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The Youthful Offender Act, OCGA § 42-7-1 et seq., contains significantly different provisions; it does not authorize the discharge of a felony conviction.”
In Re Skk, 635 S.E.2d 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “[5] OCGA § 42-7-1 et seq. [6] In the Interest of J.”
White v. State, 310 S.E.2d 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Following the entry of guilty pleas to two counts of theft by taking, appellant was given a suspended sentence under the Youthful Offender Act (OCGA § 42-7-1 et seq. (Code Ann. § 77-345 et seq.”
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.