Geiger v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53019,53019,2 |
| Citation | 140 Ga.App. 800,232 S.E.2d 109 |
| Parties | R. C. GEIGER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
George E. Argo, Vidalia, for appellant.
Dewey Hayes, Dist. Atty., Douglas, for appellee.
On November 3, 1975, defendant pled guilty to the felony offense of child abandonment. Defendant's sentence was probated on several conditions, one of which was that defendant pay the amount of past due child support then outstanding. Although defendant complied with all other conditions of his probation, he did not comply with this requirement and has failed to make proper payment of child support in arrears.
Defendant's probation supervisor petitioned for the revocation of defendant's probation, and after a hearing the court ordered the revocation of defendant's probation. Defendant appeals from that order, contending that the court lacked the authority to impose the payment of child support arrears as a condition of probation and that the revocation of defendant's probation was in fact imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution of Georgia of 1945 (Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. 21; Code Ann. § 2-121). Held:
1. The Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of cases involving a mere application, in a general sense, of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution of Georgia. Giles v. State, 212 Ga. 465, 93 S.E.2d 739 and cases cited therein.
2. The defendant has been offered the opportunity to relieve himself from the imposition of the penalty of imprisonment. This punishment is imposed due to defendant's conviction for the felony of abandonment. 'Probation is granted as a privilege, and not as a matter of right; and the revocation of the probation is punishment for the crime for which the defendant was convicted in the first instance.' Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. 818, 819, 108 S.E.2d 313, 314. See also Scott v. State, 131 Ga.App. 504, 206 S.E.2d 137.
Here, the defendant has been convicted and faces imprisonment. He cannot insist on terms or strike a bargain, as the probation comes as an act of grace (Scott v. State, supra), and the court may impose any reasonable terms. State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 670, 208 S.E.2d 472. Defendant's imprisonment is his punishment for the crime of abandonment, therefore, these facts disclose no imprisonment for debt as prohibited by the Constitution. Davis v. State, 53 Ga.App. 325(2), 185 S.E. 400.
3. Defendant also contends that the court was not authorized by Code Ann. § 74-9902 () to impose payment of the child support arrears as a condition of probation. The court's authorization to impose this condition of probation arises not from Code Ann. § 74-9902, but from Code Ann. § 27-2711 (), which has been construed to be permissive rather than exclusive (Gay v. State,101...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaPann v. State
...not inquire as to the authority of the board to suspend him. See Gay v. State, 101 Ga.App. 225(1), 113 S.E.2d 223; Geiger v. State, 140 Ga.App. 800, 802(3), 232 S.E.2d 109; Mann v. State, 154 Ga.App. 677, 681, 269 S.E.2d 863; Parkerson v. State, 156 Ga.App. 440, 274 S.E.2d 799; Johnson v. S......
-
Edwards v. State, 69629
...defendant was convicted in the first instance.' Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. 818, 819, 108 S.E.2d 313 [ (1959) ]." Geiger v. State, 140 Ga.App. 800, 801, 232 S.E.2d 109 (1976). It is undisputed that appellant was present in Early County on April 9, 1984 in violation of the special condition of......
-
Johnson v. State, 63861
...imposed. George v. State, 99 Ga.App. 892, 893(1), 109 S.E.2d 883; Gay v. State, 101 Ga.App. 225(1), 113 S.E.2d 223; Geiger v. State, 140 Ga.App. 800, 802(3), 232 S.E.2d 109; Wood v. State, 150 Ga.App. 582, 583(2), 258 S.E.2d 171; State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 670, 208 S.E.2d 472; Ward v. S......
- Raven v. S. S. Kresge Co.