Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1943, p. 185, § 23; Ga. L. 1964, p. 487, § 1; Ga. L. 1969, p. 948, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 283, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 42; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3221, § 10; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 15; Ga. L. 1995, p. 625, § 3; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1113, § 3; Ga. L. 2014, p. 444, § 2-12/HB 271; Ga. L. 2015, p. 519, § 2-2/HB 328; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 3-32/HB 233; Ga. L. 2016, p. 443, § 9-1/SB 367; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1112, § 42/SB 365.)
The 2014 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, inserted "murder in the second degree," near the beginning of subsection (g).
The 2015 amendments. The first 2015 amendment, effective July 5, 2015, in subsection (b), inserted paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) designations, in paragraph (b)(2), inserted "and paragraph (3) of this subsection" twice, and added paragraph (b)(3). See Editor's notes for applicability. The second 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, substituted "fines and bond forfeitures" for "fines and forfeitures" at the end of the first sentence of subsection (a).
The 2016 amendment, effective April 27, 2016, twice substituted "paragraphs (3) and (4)" for "paragraph (3)" in paragraph (b)(2); and added paragraph (b)(4). See Editor's notes for applicability.
The 2018 amendment, effective May 8, 2018, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "subsection (a)" for "subsection (b)" in divisions (b)(3)(A)(iii) and (b)(4)(A)(iii).
- Power of board to order adult offender to make restitution to victim as condition of any relief ordered, § 17-14-3.
Power of board to grant parole prior to completion of one-third of sentence if restitution to victim is ordered as condition of parole, § 17-14-4.
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1995, the subsection originally designated as subsection (g) in the 1995 amendment was redesignated as subsection (h), owing to the fact that this Code section already contained a subsection (g).
- Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 18, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective on January 1, 1995, upon ratification by the voters of this state at the 1994 November general election of that proposed amendment to Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II of the Constitution authorizing the General Assembly to provide for mandatory minimum sentences and sentences of life without possibility of parole in certain cases and providing restrictions on the authority of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant paroles...." That amendment was ratified by the voters on November 8, 1994, so this Code section, as set out above, became effective on January 1, 1995.
Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994.'"
Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The General Assembly declares and finds:
"(1) That persons who are convicted of certain serious violent felonies shall serve minimum terms of imprisonment which shall not be suspended, probated, stayed, deferred, or otherwise withheld by the sentencing judge; and
"(2) That sentences ordered by courts in cases of certain serious violent felonies shall be served in their entirety and shall not be reduced by parole or by any earned time, early release, work release, or other such sentence-reducing measures administered by the Department of Corrections."
Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 16, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The provisions of this Act shall apply only to those offenses committed on or after the effective date of this Act; provided, however, that any conviction occurring prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act shall be deemed a 'conviction' for the purposes of this Act and shall be counted in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed for any offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act."
Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 17, not codified by the General Assembly, provides for severability.
Ga. L. 1998, p. 180, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The General Assembly declares and finds: (1) That the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994,' approved April 20, 1994 (Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959), provided that persons convicted of one of seven serious violent felonies shall serve minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment which shall not otherwise be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; (2) That in State v. Allmond , 225 Ga. App. 509 (1997), the Georgia Court of Appeals held, notwithstanding the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994,' that the provisions of the First Offender Act would still be available to the sentencing court, which would mean that a person who committed a serious violent felony could be sentenced to less than the minimum mandatory ten-year sentence; and (3) That, contrary to the decision in State v. Allmond , it is the expressed intent of the General Assembly that persons who commit a serious violent felony specified in the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994' shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and shall not be eligible for first offender treatment."
Ga. L. 2015, p. 519, § 2-2(b)/HB 328, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that this Act shall be given retroactive effect to those sentences imposed before May 5, 2015, of Part II of this Act."
Ga. L. 2016, p. 443, § 14-1/SB 367, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the provisions of Part IX of this Act shall be given retroactive effect to those sentences imposed before the effective date of Part IX of this Act (April 27, 2016).
- For article, "Garner v. Jones: Restricting Prisoners' Ex Post Facto Challenges to Changes in Parole Systems," see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 761 (2001). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (2015). For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 139 (2016). For note on the 1994 amendment of this Code section, see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 159 (1994).
- Exceptional parole process governed by O.C.G.A. §§ 42-9-45 and42-9-46 did not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. Worley v. Georgia Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 932 F. Supp. 1466 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
State prisoner's rights under the due process clause were not violated because there was no liberty interest in parole, nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A required an evidentiary hearing prior to a sua sponte dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case for failure to state a claim, and O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(f) did not create a liberty interest in parole after a residential burglary conviction. Heard v. Ga. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 222 Fed. Appx. 838 (11th Cir. 2007)(Unpublished).
- Although subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45 purports to establish the minimum time served before an inmate is eligible for consideration for parole, and O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46 authorizes the Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider an inmate for parole before the inmate has served the minimum time specified in subsection (b), these provisions can be interpreted as meaning that the board can consider an inmate for parole before service of the minimum time specified in subsection (b), so long as the notice required by § 42-9-46 is given. Charron v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 253 Ga. 274, 319 S.E.2d 453 (1984).
Retroactive change in the method for calculating the tentative parole month of certain crime severity level offenders under the parole decision guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause because the change did not produce a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes. Jones v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 59 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 1995).
Retroactive change in the method for calculating the tentative parole month of certain crime severity level offenders under the parole decision guidelines did not violate due process because the prisoners affected did not have a derivative due process right to be sentenced in reliance on an expectation of parole. Jones v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 59 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 1995).
Retroactive application of amendments to the Georgia regulations changing the frequency of parole reviews, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 475-3-.05.(2) (1986), does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 120 S. Ct. 1362, 146 L. Ed. 2d 236 (2000).
Retroactive application of Rule 475-3-.05 (2) of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, allowing the board to extend the interval between parole reconsiderations up to a period of eight years for an inmate serving a life sentence, does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Ray v. Jacobs, 272 Ga. 760, 534 S.E.2d 418 (2000).
- State Pardons and Parole Board had the power to promulgate rules and regulations dictating the practices and procedures pertaining to parole, and the requirement that it set forth the time when the automatic initial consideration for parole of a prisoner would take place did not mean that parole had to take place at that time as the decision of when to parole a prisoner was a discretionary decision entrusted to the board. Ray v. Carthen, 275 Ga. 459, 569 S.E.2d 542 (2002).
Cited in Matthews v. Everett, 201 Ga. 730, 41 S.E.2d 148 (1947); Williams v. McCall, 531 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir. 1976); Slocum v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 678 F.2d 940 (11th Cir. 1982); Davis v. State, 255 Ga. 598, 340 S.E.2d 869 (1986); Bradshaw v. State, 284 Ga. 675, 671 S.E.2d 485 (2008).
- Insofar as the guidelines of the board serve as a codification of relevant factors which have been and will continue to be considered by the board in making parole decisions, the application of the guidelines to persons already in the state's penal system does not violate the ex post facto clause of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X, or U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. IX, Para. III. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-74.
- As of January 1, 1995, there are additional constitutional limitations on the power of the Board of Pardons and Paroles to parole. These limitations are the clear prerogative of the General Assembly to proscribe. These limitations include the inability to parole during the mandatory minimum sentence for the seven serious violent felonies set out in O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6.1, the inability to parole for sentences of life without parole as set out in O.C.G.A. §§ 17-10-7(b)(2) and17-10-16, and the inability to parole for felony recidivists who are convicted for a fourth or subsequent such offense. Other felons and misdemeanants are required to serve the minimum time prescribed in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45 subject to the authority reserved by statute to the board in O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46 to consider those individuals for clemency upon complying with certain notice procedures. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-4.
- Notwithstanding fact that an individual has been pardoned for a traffic offense, one is not entitled to have one's driver's license reinstated. The right to a operate motor vehicle, to practice one's profession, and other extraordinary rights granted and regulated by the state under the state's police power are not affected by pardon. 1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 506.
- Because there appears to be no requirement that the board hold a hearing, public or otherwise, when considering an application for commutation of a death sentence, if the board deems a hearing feasible, it may structure such hearing as it deems practicable in order to facilitate the accomplishment of its duties. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-44.
- Board, in the board's discretion, may grant a reprieve of a sentence for a specified period of time for the purpose of enabling a prisoner to obtain medical treatments outside of the confines of a state penal institution. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-205.
Board may not permit a prisoner to leave the state under reprieve order so long as the board's own rule prohibits such practice; however, there is no constitutional or statutory provision which would prevent the board from granting a reprieve, for medical purposes, when the board's members know the prisoner intends to leave this state for the purpose of securing medical treatment if the board changes the board's rule. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-205.
- 67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole, §§ 49-52.
- Pardon or parole, suspension of sentence or discharge, as affecting fine or penalty imposed in addition to imprisonment, 74 A.L.R. 1118.
Application for or acceptance of executive clemency as affecting appellate proceedings or motion for new trial, 138 A.L.R. 1162.
Total Results: 15
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-08-23
Snippet: section and subsection (b) of Code Section 42-9-45, any person who, after having been convicted
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-06-03
Citation: 829 S.E.2d 99, 306 Ga. 15
Snippet: Code section and subsection (b) of Code Section 42-9-45, any person who, after having been convicted under
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-01-29
Citation: 302 Ga. 820, 809 S.E.2d 727
Snippet: Code section and subsection (b) of Code Section 42-9-45, any person who, after having been convicted under
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-11-21
Citation: 300 Ga. 271, 794 S.E.2d 40, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 773
Snippet: Code section and subsection (b) of Code Section 42-9-45, any person who, after having been convicted under
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-10-17
Citation: 299 Ga. 779, 792 S.E.2d 387, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 643
Snippet: time of appellant’s crime and sentencing, OCGA § 42-9-45 (b) (2), required such a defendant to serve only
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-04-09
Citation: 698 S.E.2d 301, 287 Ga. 338, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2748, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 317
Snippet: prison before being eligible for parole. See OCGA § 42-9-45 (b). On the other hand, if Phillips had been convicted
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-11-25
Citation: 671 S.E.2d 485, 284 Ga. 675, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 3868, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 1022
Snippet: eligible for parole in only seven years under OCGA § 42-9-45 (b), his sentence is also considerably less severe
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-04-27
Citation: 596 S.E.2d 112, 277 Ga. 778
Snippet: Smith's attorney informed him that under OCGA § 42-9-45(f) he would be eligible for parole after serving
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-09-16
Citation: 275 Ga. 459, 569 S.E.2d 542, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2676, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 634
Snippet: chairman, Walter Ray, asserting that under OCGA § 42-9-45 (a) he had a right to a parole hearing once he
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-04-29
Citation: 563 S.E.2d 429, 275 Ga. 205, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1297, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 368
Snippet: Ga. 856, 857(2), 548 S.E.2d 283 (2001); OCGA § 42-9-45(a), (b). In its brief, the Board contends that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-01-08
Citation: 273 Ga. 322, 540 S.E.2d 189
Snippet: petition, Griffin asserted that OCGA §§ 42-9-40 and 42-9-45 were “unconstitutional statutes that induce guilty
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-09-11
Citation: 272 Ga. 760, 534 S.E.2d 418, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3579, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 617
Snippet: 120 SC at 1368. 120 SC at 1370. OCGA § 42-9-45 (b) provides that an inmate serving a life sentence
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-10-18
Citation: 522 S.E.2d 657, 271 Ga. 663, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3805, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 968
Snippet: and unconstitutionality of OCGA §§ 42-9-40 and 42-9-45 in that the statutes grant the Parole Board unfettered
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1986-03-11
Citation: 340 S.E.2d 869, 255 Ga. 598
Snippet: fact, a possibility. See OCGA §§ 42-9-39 (c); 42-9-45 (b). While an individual defendant may wish to
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1984-09-06
Citation: 319 S.E.2d 453, 253 Ga. 274, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 890
Snippet: injunctive relief. Ruling that §42-9-46, as well as § 42-9-45 (b), unconstitutionally *Page 275 infringe on