Disposition of Cases Currently Under Review by Three-Judge Panel; Duties and Responsibilities of the President of the Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia With Respect to Abolishing the Three-Judge Panel

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Criminal Procedure
  4. Sentence and Punishment
  5. Procedure for Sentencing and Imposition of Punishment
  6. Disposition of Cases Currently Under Review by Three-Judge Panel; Duties and Responsibilities of the President of the Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia With Respect to Abolishing the Three-Judge Panel

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. As used in this Code section, the term "three-judge panel" means the three-judge panel that was created and existed pursuant to the former provisions of Code Section 17-10-6 as it existed on June 30, 2007, which reviewed certain sentences to determine if a sentence was excessively harsh and what relief, if any, should be given.
  2. The right of a defendant to have a sentence reviewed by a three-judge panel shall be terminated for sentences imposed by a trial or appellate court on or after July 1, 2007. No new application for review of a sentence shall be transmitted to the three-judge panel on or after July 1, 2007, except for cases in which a sentence was imposed prior to July 1, 2007.
  3. No new application for review of a sentence shall be accepted by the three-judge panel unless such application has been received by the three-judge panel on or before September 1, 2007. Any sentence that has an application for review with the three-judge panel pending on September 1, 2007, shall have such review completed by the three-judge panel by November 1, 2008.
  4. It shall be the duty of the president of The Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia to cause all administrative measures which may be necessary to conclude the business of the three-judge panel to be completed no later than January 1, 2009. Such administrative, clerical, or secretarial personnel as may be assigned to provide support for the three-judge panel may continue to be employed for the purpose of providing support to the president of The Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia until January 1, 2009.
  5. No later than January 1, 2009, all records and documents relating to the activities of the three-judge panels during the period July 1, 1974, through November 1, 2008, shall be transmitted to the Division of Archives and History for retention in accordance with Article 5 of Chapter 18 of Title 50, the "Georgia Records Act." All equipment, supplies, and materials which the president of The Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia determines are excess or surplus shall be distributed by the president to the judges of the superior courts for use in the performance of their official duties. Any fees or expenses due to any clerk, superior court judge, or other person as a result of the three-judge panel shall be paid out of such funds as are appropriated for the operation of the superior courts during fiscal year 2009.

(Code 1981, §17-10-6.3, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 595, § 3/HB 197; Ga. L. 2013, p. 594, § 2-6/HB 287.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2007, p. 595, § 5/HB 197, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Code section shall apply to all trials which occur on or after July 1, 2007.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Former

§ 17-10-6. - Trial court properly ruled that former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6, which authorized the Georgia Sentence Review Panel to review and reduce sentences, was unconstitutional as the Georgia General Assembly did not have the constitutional authority to divest the trial courts of Georgia of their traditional jurisdiction over sentencing by creating a quasi-appellate tribunal (such as the Panel) to review and alter the otherwise lawful sentences imposed by those trial courts. Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 284 Ga. 128, 663 S.E.2d 679 (2008).

Out of time sentence review granted under former

§ 17-10-6. - Trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to hold judgment void and reinstating the defendant's 20-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter because the defendant's application for an out-of-time sentence review was granted under former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6(a), thus, the trial court's reinvested subject matter jurisdiction over the question of the sentencing was improper. McClendon v. State, 318 Ga. App. 676, 734 S.E.2d 505 (2012).

Former

§ 17-10-6 not to be applied retroactively. - Trial court erred by holding that the unconstitutionality of former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6 applied retroactively to an inmate whose sentence for voluntary manslaughter was reduced by the Georgia Sentence Review Panel and to other defendants similarly situated as the trial court should have applied the ruling prospectively only. Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 284 Ga. 128, 663 S.E.2d 679 (2008).

Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea proper.

- Denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 33.12(A) was proper because the defendant failed to establish that but for defense counsel's failure to inform the defendant of the repeal of former O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6, which allowed for a sentence review, the defendant would have insisted on a trial; further, the defendant was aware of the maximum sentence, and the availability of a sentence review did not alter the possibility that the defendant could have potentially been required to serve up to 66 years in prison. The record supported a finding that the defendant entered the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Vaughn v. State, 298 Ga. App. 669, 680 S.E.2d 680 (2009).

Cited in Askew v. State, 318 Ga. App. 454, 734 S.E.2d 222 (2012).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.