Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

208 Ga. App. 472

431 S.E.2d 136

93 FultonCountyD.Rep. 1638

Jones v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 13, 1993

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1993-04-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“I have never granted a first offender. I take the position that once you get to the Superior Court, this is a big folks' court, and I don't use the first offender treatment. Never have, never intend to[,]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 347 Ga. App. 246 - John Doe v. State

Relies on 206 Ga. App. 197 - Cottingham v. State · 172 Ga. App. 231 - Todd v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-04-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2018

20 state decisions

120199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Johnson, Judge.

¶1 Billie Jones pled guilty to violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (sale of Alprazolam). At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel requested that the court grant first offender treatment for Jones. The trial judge denied the request, stating: “I have never granted a first offender. I take the position that once you get to the Superior Court, this is a big folks’ court, and I don’t use the first offender treatment. Never have, never intend to.” The court then sentenced Jones to a term of five years probation. Jones appeals from the sentence, arguing that the judge refused to consider first offender *473 treatment pursuant to a mechanical sentencing policy. We agree.

Decided April 13, 1993. Bruce S. Harvey, Pete C. Whitlock, for appellant. Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., District Attorney, Sharon J. Law, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

¶2 In Cottingham v. State, 206 Ga. App. 197, 199 (3) (424 SE2d 794) (1992) we held: “[A] trial court’s use of a mechanical sentencing formula or policy as to any portion of a sentence amounts to a refusal to exercise its discretion and therefore is an abdication of judicial responsibility.” The record reveals that the trial court would not concede that it had a policy with respect to first offender treatment. However, it is clear from the plain language used by the court that it did have a mechanical sentencing policy of never granting first offender status to defendants appearing in superior court. The legislature has specifically provided first offender treatment as a sentencing option in felony cases to be applied at the trial court’s discretion. OCGA § 42-8-60; Todd v. State, 172 Ga. App. 231 (323 SE2d 6) (1984). The trial court’s refusal to consider that option constitutes a refusal to exercise that discretion. The judgment of sentence is vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing with direction that the new sentence not exceed the sentence previously imposed, and the request for first offender status be heard and considered on its merits.

¶3 Sentence vacated and case remanded with direction.

Blackburn, J., and Senior Appellate Judge John W. Sognier concur.
/208/gaapp/472 · .json · Public domain