(Ga. L. 1943, p. 185, § 12; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 3-2/HB 228; Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 5-85/HB 310; Ga. L. 2017, p. 585, § 2-9/SB 174; Ga. L. 2019, p. 1056, § 42/SB 52.)
The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, substituted "community supervision officers" for "probation officers" in the third sentence of subsection (b). See Editor's notes for applicability.
The 2017 amendment, effective July 1, 2017, added the proviso at the end of the last sentence of subsection (b).
The 2019 amendment, effective May 12, 2019, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, inserted "or her" in paragraph (a)(3).
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective July 1, 2015, and shall apply to sentences entered on or after such date."
Law reviews.- For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 231 (2015). For article on the 2017 amendment of this Code section, see 34 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 115 (2017).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Right to parole.
- Georgia parole statutes create no entitlement to or liberty interest in parole. Slocum v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 678 F.2d 940 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043, 103 S. Ct. 462, 74 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1982).
Impact of parole officers and board's actions.- Parole board was responsible for maintaining a complete record on any person who came under the power of the board and that record included the nature and term of the individual's sentence; furthermore, it was the parole board that has the power to set the terms and conditions of parole. Thus, the acts of the parole officer, or those within the parole board who make such determinations, in setting the expiration dates of plaintiff's parole, served to break the chain of causation with respect to any error that might have flowed from the misstatement in the parole officer's motion; the parole officer had no power to increase plaintiff's sentence and no power to set the terms of plaintiff's parole. Morgan v. Yarbrough, F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Apr. 30, 2008).
Examination of file by inmate.
- Refusal of a parole board to allow an inmate to examine the inmate's file does not assume the proportions of a deprivation of the inmate's rights under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Slocum v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 678 F.2d 940 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043, 103 S. Ct. 462, 74 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1982).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Maintenance of misdemeanant records mandatory.
- Misdemeanant may become subject to parole upon application; therefore, the board must maintain all information gathered on such an individual in the board's "permanent" records. 1963-65 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 318.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
C.J.S.
- 67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole, §§ 6, 7.