Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 42-8-30 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 42-8-30 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 42-8-30

TITLE 42 PENAL INSTITUTIONS

Section 8. Probation, 42-8-1 through 42-8-159.

ARTICLE 2 STATE-WIDE PROBATION SYSTEM

42-8-30. Applicability of this article when private probation services are utilized.

In any county where the chief judge of the superior court, state court, municipal court, probate court, or magistrate court has provided for probation services for such court through agreement with a private corporation, enterprise, or agency or has established a county or municipal probation system for such court pursuant to Article 6 of this chapter, the provisions of this article relating to supervision services shall not apply to defendants sentenced in any such court.

(Ga. L. 1956, p. 27, § 16; Ga. L. 1972, p. 604, § 12; Code 1981, §42-8-30, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 4-1/HB 310.)

The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, redesignated former Code Section 42-8-30.1 as present Code Section 42-8-30, and substituted "Article 6 of this chapter" for "Code Section 42-8-100" and deleted "probation" preceding "supervision" near the end. See Editor's notes for applicability.

Cross references.

- Applicability of this state's correction laws to probationers' found in other states, T. 42, C. 11.

Editor's notes.

- Former Code Section 42-8-30 (Ga. L. 1956, p. 27, § 16; Ga. L. 1972, p. 604, § 12), relating to supervision of juvenile offenders by probation supervisors, was repealed by Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 4-1/HB 310, effective July 1, 2015.

Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective July 1, 2015, and shall apply to sentences entered on or after such date."

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Construction with other law.

- Juvenile's interference with a juvenile probation officer's attempt to take the juvenile into custody, after the juvenile tested positive for illegal drug use, was sufficient to support an adjudication under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b); moreover, the appeals court was not persuaded by the juvenile's contention that O.C.G.A. § 42-8-30 specifically limited the role of the "probation supervisor" over juveniles to those counties in which no juvenile probation system existed. In the Interest of M.M., 287 Ga. App. 233, 651 S.E.2d 155 (2007), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 95 (Ga. 2008).

Passage of time does not extinguish unserved sentence.

- Georgia Supreme Court answered two questions certified to it from a federal district court and concluded, as a matter of common law, that the mere passage of time does not extinguish an unserved sentence and that the common law principle has not been abrogated by the State-wide Probation Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-8-30. Anderson v. Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC, 298 Ga. 854, 784 S.E.2d 791 (2016).

Cited in P.R. v. State, 133 Ga. App. 346, 210 S.E.2d 839 (1974).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 526-536. 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, §§ 1-77.

C.J.S.

- 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, §§ 2144-2161. 43 C.J.S., Infants, §§ 6-8.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 42-8-30

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC v. Glover, 296 Ga. 315 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 24, 2014 | 766 S.E.2d 456

...of which are divided into Articles 1 through 9. Article 2,20 also known as the “State-wide Probation Act,” sets forth a state-wide probation system created for felony offenders “to be administered by the Department of Corrections.” OCGA § 42-8-22. OCGA § 42-8-30.1 which is located in Article 2, provides: In any county where the chief judge of the superior court, state court, municipal court, probate court, or magistrate court has provided for probation services for such co...
...hrase “relating to probation supervision services” describes “this article” rather than particular “provisions of this article.” It was not meaningless surplusage to include a general description of “this article,” particularly as § 42-8-30.1 was not enacted or amended along with the rest of Article 2, and the General Assembly has used similar formulations elsewhere in the Code....
...oners supervised by private probation servicing companies. 4. Having affirmed the trial court’s rulings with respect to the constitutionality of OCGA § 42-8-100 (g) (1) and having addressed the proper statutory interpretation of OCGA § 42-8-30.1, we now consider whether the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiffs have a right of recovery against Sentinel under the doctrine of money had and received for any probation supervision fees Sentinel collected from the plaint...
Copy

Anderson v. Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC, 298 Ga. 854 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 25, 2016 | 784 S.E.2d 791

...divested of the responsibility to supervise misdemeanor probationers. See Ga. L. 2000, p. 1645 § 1; see also OCGA § 17-10-3 (f). 9 inapplicable to the private probation scheme for misdemeanors. See Sentinel I, 296 Ga. at 327-328; OCGA § 42-8-30....
...o misdemeanor probation. We believe that it does. As an initial matter, common law tolling has never been expressly abrogated and, though the now-codified tolling provision has been made inapplicable to misdemeanor probation by way of OCGA § 42-8-30, we do not think that fact concludes the matter. Notably, OCGA § 42-8-30 renders the entirety of the State-wide Probation Act inapplicable to misdemeanor probation, not just its tolling provision and, thus, does not necessarily imply an abrogation of the common law rule....
...tolling of a probationer’s sentence based on his or her alleged status as a fugitive as specifically allowed by the tolling provisions found in Article 2" of Georgia’s Probation Code. Id. Significantly, while the legislature’s enactment in 1991 of OCGA § 42-8-30.1, repealed the State-wide Probation Act and thus its tolling 4 provisions as to some misdemeanor probationers, it did not otherwise repeal the tolling statute which remained in full force and effect for all felony probationers and some misdemeanor probationers....
...At all times prior to 1991, these changes applied to all misdemeanor, as well as felony probationers. This evolution and the case law supporting it reflects the will of the legislature specifically as to the manner by which a probationer’s sentence may be tolled. As the clear legislative intent of OCGA § 42-8-30.1 when first passed in 1991 was to create a separate probation system under Article 6, Chapter 8 of Title 42 for those misdemeanor probationers whose probation had been removed from the purview of state probation officers under the Sta...