O.C.G.A. § 42-8-32 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. Applicability of this state’s correction laws to probationers’ found in other states, T. 42, C. 11. Editor’s notes. 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.” Law reviews. For note on 1989 amendment to this Code section, see 6 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 232 (1989). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Vague sentence on charge of abandonment. - Since the sentence on a charge of abandonment did not specify whether the payments required thereunder were in the nature of a fine or a payment for the support of the defendant’s child or children, and failed to specify where or to whom the payments were to be made, this provision of the sentence

was too vague and indefinite to be enforceable, and a revocation of the probation sentence solely on the ground that the defendant did not make the payments specified was without authority of law. Guest v. State, 87 Ga. App. 184, 73 S.E.2d 218, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 645 (1952) (decided under former law).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Collection of abandonment and bastardy payments. - In this section, there is no proviso excluding abandonment and bastardy cases and, since both are declared to be misdemeanors, funds directed to be paid as the result of such cases would be the result of “criminal proceedings” as defined in this section, and the probation officers may be ordered to collect the funds. 1963-65 Ga. Op. Att’y Gen. 514. Probation office employees. - Department of Offender Rehabilitation (Corrections) may not enter into an arrangement with the Department of Human Resources in which employees of local probation offices, other than probation supervisors, may collect child support recovery unit money which arises from civil proceedings brought by the Department of Human Resources on behalf of errant fathers. 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-99. Collection of supervision fee by department. - Department of Offender Rehabilitation (Corrections) may not on its own initiative collect supervision fee from probationers. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81100. Payment of fee by probationer. - Probationer’s agreement to pay supervision fee should be obtained at time of sentencing and should be recorded. But, regardless of whetherthe probationer agrees, the probationer can be required to pay a reasonable supervision fee as a

condition of probation. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81-100. Retention of fee. - Probation supervision fee, collected pursuant to probation order of sentencing court, does not have a statutory premise. Therefore, such a fee does not have to be paid into the state treasury but, if permitted by the probation order, could be retained by the Department of Offender Rehabilitation (Corrections). 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81-100. Authority to collect payments of fines and restitution. - Collection and disbursement of payments of fines and restitution as may be established as conditions upon the grant of parole may be undertaken by probation supervisors employed by the Department of Offender Rehabilitation (Corrections) so long as such payments are specifically required by court order as the result of a criminal proceeding. 1984 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 84-50. Probation supervisors employed by the Probation Division of the Georgia Department of Corrections may collect voluntary payments of court-ordered fines and restitution after the expiration of periods of probation. 1987 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 87-10. Withholding of “collection fee” from fines. - Since expenses of Department of Offender Rehabilitation (Corrections) in supervising probationers are not a proper cost of prosecution, the department cannot withhold “collection fee” to offset these costs from fines which it collects. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81-100.