Perkins v. State, S03A1325.
| Decision Date | 10 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. S03A1325.,S03A1325. |
| Citation | 277 Ga. 323,588 S.E.2d 719 |
| Parties | PERKINS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
R. Gary Spencer, Atlanta, for appellant.
Robert B. Dixon, Solicitor-General, Leonard M. Geldon, Jody L. Peskin, Carmen D. Smith, Asst. Solicitor-General, Atlanta, for appellee.
He was also charged with criminal trespass based upon the damage done to the apartment door. Perkins moved to dismiss, asserting that OCGA § 17-6-58(a) is being unconstitutionally applied to him. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, but certified its order for immediate review. We granted Perkins' application for interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the accusation.
1. The State urges that the motion was untimely filed. Because it challenged the constitutionality of the statute Perkins was charged with violating, the motion was timely and, thus, properly considered on its merits. See Gilmore v. State, 118 Ga. 299, 45 S.E. 226 (1903).
Thus, the law contemplates two separate and distinct registration requirements. OCGA § 17-6-58(a) mandates direct registration by individual bail recovery agents, such as Perkins. OCGA § 17-6-56(c) relates to the indirect registration of agents by the professional bondsmen who employ them, such as FFAB.
Perkins' constitutional challenge must be decided on the particular facts of the case. State v. Boyer, 270 Ga. 701, 702(1), 512 S.E.2d 605 (1999). It appears that Fulton County has not instituted a system whereby an individual agent can, in compliance with OCGA § 17-6-58(a), register directly with the Fulton County Sheriff. Instead, the system maintained by the Sheriff contemplates only the indirect registration of agents by professional bondsmen in accordance with the requirements of OCGA § 17-6-56(c). Due process requires that criminal provisions Thelen v. State, 272 Ga. 81, 82, 526 S.E.2d 60 (2000). Perkins cannot be prosecuted for violating OCGA § 17-6-58(a) if it was impossible for him to conform his conduct to its requirements by registering himself directly with the sheriff of Fulton County. See OCGA § 16-4-4; Guzman v. State, 206 Ga.App. 170, 172(2), 424 S.E.2d 849 (1992).
The State maintains that the limited Fulton County registration system is sufficient because Perkins can be prosecuted for the failure of FFAB to comply with its duty to register him with the sheriff. However, OCGA § 17-6-58(a) does not purport to impose criminal liability on the agent for the professional bondsman's violation of the independent duty imposed by OCGA § 17-6-56(c). By its terms, OCGA § 17-6-58(a) unambiguously applies only to the agent who fails to register with the local sheriff, not to the agent whose employing bondsman fails to register him or her. Moreover, we have held that vicarious criminal liability violates due process. Davis v. City of Peachtree City, 251 Ga. 219, 222(1), 304 S.E.2d 701 (1983).
Thus, the failure of Fulton County to maintain a system for the registration of individual agents precludes a successful prosecution of Perkins for violating OCGA § 17-6-58(a), and he cannot be held vicariously liable for FFAB's alleged violation of OCGA § 17-6-56(c). Moreover, even assuming that he could be prosecuted for either his own or FFAB's failure to register him with the Fulton County sheriff, it is undisputed that he was registered in 2000. Thus, as OCGA § 17-6-58(a) is being applied to him, he does not face prosecution for a failure to register in Fulton County. Instead, the State alleges that he violated that statute by failing to renew his registration.
Nothing in the applicable statutes expressly requires renewal of an agent's registration. Likewise, the statutes do not make it a crime to fail to renew.
Criminal statutes are construed strictly against the State, they must be read according to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta Taxicab Co. Owners Ass'n v. Atlanta
...223, 230, 31 S.E.2d 592 (1944). "[W]e have held that vicarious criminal liability violates due process. [Cit.]" Perkins v. State, 277 Ga. 323, 325(2), 588 S.E.2d 719 (2003). However, subjecting persons to vicarious criminal liability is a distinct proposition from imposing civil sanctions a......
-
Bully v. State
...should not be limited or extended by application of subtle and forced interpretations." (Citation omitted.) Perkins v. State , 277 Ga. 323, 325-326 (2), 588 S.E.2d 719 (2003). Here, the record evidence establishes that there was no agency relationship between RAR and/or Bully and any probat......
-
Prophitt v. State
...us to avoid extending the operation of those statutes "by application of subtle and forced interpretations." Perkins v. State, 277 Ga. 323, 326(2), 588 S.E.2d 719 (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted).Construing a statute narrowly, in turn, requires that we read the code provision in qu......
-
Hood v. Perdue
...and their operation should not be limited or extended by application of subtle and forced interpretations." Perkins v. State, 277 Ga. 323, 325-26, 588 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2003). Applying these well established rules of statutory construction, it is clear that all subsections of the statute, in......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Marcia Mccrory Ernst, Joseph L. Cooley, John Chadwick Torri, and Victor A. Ellis
...refused to accept the checks as required by the ordinance). 389. Jones, 283 Ga. App. at 127, 640 S.E.2d at 701 (quoting Perkins v. State, 277 Ga. 323, 325, 588 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2003)). 390. Id. 391. 280 Ga. 656, 631 S.E.2d 703 (2006). 392. Id. at 656, 631 S.E.2d at 703. 393. Coffey v. Fayet......
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...S.E.2d at 718. 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. Id. at 323, 588 S.E.2d at 718. See Williams v. Murray, 239 Ga. 276, 236 S.E.2d 624 (1977). 21. Hulsey, 277 Ga. at 323, 588 S.E.2d at 719. The court pointed out that Tommie maintained contact with her biological father up until his death when she was 28 yea......