Parole Guidelines System

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Penal Institutions
4. Pardons and Paroles
5. Grants of Pardons, Paroles, and Other Relief
6. Parole Guidelines System

1. The board shall adopt, implement, and maintain a parole guidelines system for determining parole action. The guidelines system shall be used in determining parole actions on all inmates, except those serving life sentences, who will become statutorily eligible for parole consideration. The system shall be consistent with the board's primary goal of protecting society and shall take into consideration the severity of the current offense, the inmate's prior criminal history, the inmate's conduct, and the social factors which the board has found to have value in predicting the probability of further criminal behavior and successful adjustment under parole supervision.
2. The guidelines system required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be adopted by rules or regulations of the board. The rules or regulations shall be adopted in conformity with Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act."

(Ga. L. 1980, p. 404, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For article critically analyzing the adoption of determinate-based sentencing, see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 425 (1983).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Release is not mandated.

- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) must be read as a qualification of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40, the provision requiring adoption of the parole guideline system. Although the legislature has required the Board of Pardon and Paroles to adopt a guideline system to be used as a framework for making more consistent parole decisions, it also preserved the Board's authority to use the Board's discretion in making final parole decisions. The statute and regulations, therefore, do not mandate that release be granted if the guidelines criteria is met. Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1191, 115 S. Ct. 1254, 131 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1995).

Role of board in denying parole.

- Plaintiff's contention that the Georgia Parole Board was not vested with the discretion to deny parole was specious in light of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40. Toenniges v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. May 26, 2010).

Mandamus not available to compel change in parole date.

- Setting of a tentative parole month was a discretionary act of the state parole board and mandamus did not lie to compel the board to reinstate a former tentative date. Vargas v. Morris, 266 Ga. 141, 465 S.E.2d 275 (1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1108, 116 S. Ct. 1329, 134 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1996).

Even though the State Pardons and Paroles Board was required to adopt a parole guideline system on all inmates who would become eligible for parole, except for inmates serving life sentences, the board was not obligated to grant parole to a prisoner at the earliest date parole had to be considered as the issue of whether to grant parole was a discretionary matter entrusted to the board; thus, the prisoner's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel parole at an earlier time should have been denied. Ray v. Carthen, 275 Ga. 459, 569 S.E.2d 542 (2002).

Cited in Terry v. Hamrick, 284 Ga. 24, 663 S.E.2d 256 (2008); Bradshaw v. State, 284 Ga. 675, 671 S.E.2d 485 (2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Validity of statutes prohibiting or restricting parole, probation, or suspension of sentence in cases of violent crimes, 100 A.L.R.3d 431.

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