State v. C.S.B., 38963

Decision Date22 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 38963,38963
Citation297 S.E.2d 260,250 Ga. 261
PartiesSTATE of Georgia, et al. v. C.S.B.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Hinson McAuliffe, Sol. Gen., Paul C. McCommon, III, Asst. Sol. Gen., State Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, for State of Ga. et al.

Charles S. Thornton, Lawson, Washington & Thornton, Atlanta, for Caron Sharise Bell.

SMITH, Justice.

The State of Georgia and Sanford A. Jones, clerk of the State Court of Fulton County, appeal from an order of Fulton Superior Court granting appellee's "Petition to Expunge Record." The superior court judge directed Jones to expunge all references to appellee from his files and to notify the County Probation System, the Georgia Crime Information Center, and the Identification Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the order of expungement.

While a student at Georgia Tech in April 1979, appellee was arrested and charged with shoplifting. She entered a plea of nolo contendere and was placed on probation as a first offender pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-2727. After successfully completing her probation, appellee was discharged without an adjudication of guilt. See Code Ann. § 27-2728. On March 23, 1982, she filed this petition in Fulton Superior Court requesting expungement from the public record of all references to her arrest, probation, and discharge as a first offender. Relying on the intent of the General Assembly as expressed in Code Ann. § 27-2728, 1 as well as on its general equitable power, the superior court granted appellee's motion.

1. The First Offender Act (Code Ann. § 27-2727 et seq.) was enacted in 1968 and amended extensively in 1978. It provides that upon a plea of not guilty or nolo contendere, the court may, prior to any adjudication of guilt, place on probation a defendant who has not previously been convicted of a felony. A record of this action is forwarded to the Georgia Crime Information Center. Upon successful completion of probation, the offender is discharged without an adjudication of guilt. The Act provides that such a discharge "shall completely exonerate the defendant of any criminal purpose," § 27-2728. A record of discharge and exoneration is then forwarded to the Georgia Crime Information Center, and upon the offender's request to other state and federal agencies which have in their files a record of the prior probation.

Appellee argues that the predominant theme of the Act is exoneration of first offenders, and that this purpose can only be realized by expunging from the public record any reference to the beneficiaries of the Act, including herself. She contends that allowing court records, which are generally accessible to the public and to potential employers, to reflect that she was arrested and given treatment as a first offender subjects her to the same stigma as a convicted criminal. Only expungement of her first offender records, she argues, can fully effectuate the purposes of the Act.

While we are sympathetic to appellee's position, we cannot agree that expungement of her records was the proper remedy in this case. In our view expungement of the records of first offender treatment of criminal defendants runs contrary to the intent and the practical operation of the First Offender Act.

Maintenance of accurate, up-to-date records is vital to the effective operation of the Act as envisioned by the General Assembly. For example, the Act provides that in a subsequent prosecution of the same defendant 1) a prior finding of guilt made pursuant to the statute may be used as if an adjudication of guilt had been entered, and 2) the records of discharge of first offenders may be released to prosecutors and state and federal probation agencies upon certification...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Strickland v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 2004
    ...language cannot be deemed meaningless. Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744, 748(3), 452 S.E.2d 476 (1994); State of Ga. v. C.S.B., 250 Ga. 261, 263, 297 S.E.2d 260 (1982). See also Pearson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 467, 468, 480 S.E.2d 911 (1997) (it is possible to commit the offense of simple b......
  • Cawthon v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 2019
    ...quoting Lockhart v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, –––– (II) (A), 136 S.Ct. 958, 194 L.Ed.2d 48 (2016).29 See State v. C. S. B. , 250 Ga. 261, 263, 297 S.E.2d 260 (1982) ("[When] possible, we construe language used by the General Assembly in a manner that will not render it meaningless or m......
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 19, 2012
    ...words “more than” surplusage, and we normally avoid construing statutes to leave parts of them meaningless. See State of Ga. v. C.S.B., 250 Ga. 261, 263, 297 S.E.2d 260 (1982). On the other hand, it is possible for something to happen in “both terms” within a span of three (or more) terms. ......
  • Glisson v. Hospital Authority of Valdosta & Lowndes County
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1997
    ... ...  On January 10, 1996, appellant filed an amendment to her complaint, amending paragraph 28 to state that "[t]he affidavit as required by law shall be filed in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-9.1(b) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT