Maintenance of Inmate Record by Sheriff; Earned Time Allowances

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Penal Institutions
4. Jails
5. General Provisions
6. Maintenance of Inmate Record by Sheriff; Earned Time Allowances

1. The sheriff shall keep a record of all persons committed to the jail of the county of which he or she is sheriff. This record shall contain the name of the person committed, such person's age, sex, race, under what process such person was committed and from what court the process issued, the crime with which the person was charged, the date of such person's commitment to jail, the day of such person's discharge, under what order such person was discharged, and the court from which the order issued. This record shall be subject to examination by any person in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50, relating to the inspection of public records.
2. 1. The sheriff, chief jailer, warden, or other officer designated by the county as custodian of inmates confined as county inmates for probation violations of felony offenses or as provided in subsection (a) of Code Section 17-10-3 may award earned time allowances to such inmates based on institutional behavior. Earned time allowances shall not be awarded which exceed one-half of the period of confinement imposed, except that the sheriff or other custodian may authorize the award of not more than four days' credit for each day on which an inmate does work on an authorized work detail; provided, however, that such increased credit for performance on a work detail shall not apply to an inmate who is incarcerated for:
      1. A second or subsequent offense of driving under the influence under Code Section 40-6-391 within a five-year period of time, as measured from the date of any previous arrest for which a conviction was obtained or a plea of nolo contendere was accepted to the date of the current arrest for which a conviction is obtained or a plea of nolo contendere is accepted;
      2. A misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature; or
      3. A crime committed against a family member as defined in Code Section 19-13-1.
   2. While an inmate sentenced to confinement as a county inmate is in custody as a county inmate, the custodian of such inmate may award an earned time allowance consistent with this subsection and subsection (b) of Code Section 17-10-4 based on the institutional behavior of such inmate while in custody as a county inmate.
   3. An inmate sentenced to confinement as a county inmate shall be released at the expiration of his or her sentence less the time deducted for earned time allowances.
3. Commencing January 1, 1984, those provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section which provide for good-time allowances to be awarded to inmates sentenced to confinement as county inmates as provided in subsection (a) of Code Section 17-10-3 shall apply to all such inmates in confinement on December 31, 1983, and all inmates who commit crimes on or after January 1, 1984, and are subsequently convicted and sentenced to confinement as county inmates. Conversion of the computation of the sentences of county inmates in confinement on December 31, 1983, from earned time governed sentences to good-time governed sentences shall be made by the sheriff or other custodian of such inmates. Commencing July 1, 1994, those provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section which provide for good-time allowances to be awarded to inmates sentenced to confinement as county inmates for probation violations of felony offenses shall apply to all such inmates in confinement on June 30, 1994, and all inmates whose probation is revoked or who commit crimes on or after July 1, 1994, and are subsequently sentenced to confinement as county inmates. Commencing July 1, 2000, the award of earned time allowances pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section for persons who commit crimes on or after July 1, 2000, and are subsequently convicted and sentenced to confinement as county inmates and inmates whose probation is revoked on or after July 1, 2000, or who commit crimes on or after July 1, 2000, and are subsequently sentenced to confinement as county inmates is not automatic or mandatory but shall be based upon institutional behavior.

(Ga. L. 1877, p. 111, § 1; Code 1882, § 366a; Penal Code 1895, § 1125; Penal Code 1910, § 1154; Code 1933, § 77-108; Ga. L. 1983, p. 1340, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 632, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1955, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1111, § 2; Ga. L. 2004, p. 155, § 1.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1994, "of felony offenses" was substituted for "of, felony offenses," in the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2000, p. 1111, § 3, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2000, and shall apply to persons who commit crimes on or after such date and who are subsequently convicted and sentenced to confinement as county inmates and to persons whose probation is revoked on or after such date or who commit crimes on or after such date and who subsequently are sentenced to confinement as county inmates."

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality of section.

- This section is violative of U.S. Const., amend. 14 to the extent that the statute requires segregation of the races in the prisons and jails of Georgia. Otherwise, the statute remains in full force and effect. Wilson v. Kelley, 294 F. Supp. 1005 (N.D. Ga.), aff'd, 393 U.S. 266, 89 S. Ct. 477, 21 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1968).

Administrative enforcement of good-time credit provisions.

- Good-time credit provisions of O.C.G.A. § 42-4-7 work toward the end of encouraging good behavior among inmates while incarcerated. The provisions are directly related to the duties of administration and are affirmatively delegated to the custodians of inmates by the legislature. A trial court would therefore be without jurisdiction to usurp this function by ordering that good-time credit be withheld until fines are paid. Davis v. State, 181 Ga. App. 498, 353 S.E.2d 7 (1987).

Claim lay against sheriff in individual capacity for violation.

- In a detainee's suit against a sheriff, county, and city arising out of the detainee's improper detention, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as to the sheriff's individual liability for violations of federal law, and for failure to update the detainee's criminal record as required by O.C.G.A. § 42-4-7 and bring the detainee before a judicial officer; however, claims against the city and county were dismissed based on immunity under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX(d) and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. IX. Purvis v. City of Atlanta, 142 F. Supp. 3d 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Imposition of probation on any time by which confinement is shortened due to good-time credit is prohibited by the provision of paragraph (b)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 42-4-7. Hutchins v. State, 243 Ga. App. 261, 533 S.E.2d 107 (2000).

Requirement that sentence be served day for day or probation be substituted prohibited.

- Following the defendant's conviction of misdemeanor offenses of driving under the influence - less safe (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1)) and operating a motor vehicle with defective or no headlights (O.C.G.A. § 40-8-22), the defendant's sentence of consecutive terms of 12 months' imprisonment, for a total sentence of 24 months, to be served day-for-day, and to be served on probation if the defendant was released before the end of the term, was error because it usurped the authority of the custodian of a county inmate under O.C.G.A. § 42-4-7(b) to grant earned-time allowances. Evans v. State, 349 Ga. App. 712, 824 S.E.2d 708 (2019).

Cited in Howington v. Wilson, 213 Ga. 664, 100 S.E.2d 726 (1957); Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Automatic accrual of earned-time.

- Custodian of a county inmate was not required to take any affirmative action under former law to award earned-time, which was automatic. 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U84-10.

"Conversion" to good-time under subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 42-4-7 requires the custodian of an inmate in custody on December 31, 1983 to recompute the term of confinement by reducing that term by any period of time an inmate may have spent in a time-out status. 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U84-10.

Due process requirements for deduction of good-time.

- Since deductions of good-time from county misdemeanor inmates under paragraph (b)(2) amount to the deprivation of a liberty interest, the minimal procedures established by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974), must be followed; therefore, an inmate is entitled to: (1) at least 24 hours written notice of the charges against the inmate; (2) a hearing at which the inmate may, consistent with the needs and good order of the prison, call witnesses and present evidence; and (3) a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U84-10.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions, §§ 20-22, 204, 208 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners, §§ 14, 142 et seq.

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