lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
WOODALL v. THE STATE.
45556.
DEEN, Judge.
Revocation of probation. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge Hames.
The "Statewide Probation Act," Code Ann 27-2702 through 27-2721, and particularly 27-2709 (Ga. L. 1956, pp. 27, 31; 1958, pp. 15, 20; 1960, p. 1148) provide wide powers to superior courts in matters of probations and revocation of probated sentences. Pretermitting the question of whether the Cobb Superior Court has authority to revoke the probation of appellant, originally granted by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, it is clear that powers under the Statewide Probation Act are limited "except for an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment . . . may hear and determine the question of probation of such defendant." Since appellant was found guilty of murder and was given a life sentence, Code Ann. 27-2709 would not apply. It appears that the State Board of Pardons and Paroles would have exclusive jurisdiction as to further consideration of rescinding probation or conditional release. Code Ann. 77-518, 77-519, 77-520 (Ga. L. 1943, pp. 185, 192, 193; 1955, pp. 351, 352; 1964, pp. 497, 498; 1965, pp. 478, 479, 480, 481).
The order of the board states that the defendant serve the remainder of his sentence on probation, and it is appellee's argument that "due to the fact that the appellant is a probationer and not a parolee he is then subject to the supervision of the superior court where he was convicted or transferred," and that the court therefore has authority to revoke the probation. The distinction is not well drawn, since under Code Ann. 77-514 the board does have authority to release a prisoner on probation, he is then a "conditional releasee" under the terms of Code Ann. 77-519 and is to be further dealt with by the board as therein stated.
The trial court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction of revocation of appellant's probation therefore, this case must stand
Ben F. Smith, District Attorney, George W. Darden, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
W. R. Robertson, III, for appellant.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 16, 1970 -- DECIDED OCTOBER 15, 1970.
Friday May 22 17:17 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com