Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ga. App. 795

Olsen v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 6, 1918

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1918-03-06

<p>Indictment for misdemeanor; from Glynn superior court— Judge Highsmith. October 19, 1917.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Where, after due examination, the court revokes its leave to the probationer to serve the remainder of his sentence outside the confines of the chain-gang, jail, or other place of detention, this court will not interfere unless a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court appears.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 71 Ga. App. 751 - Foster v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1918-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 1968 · most notably Johnson v. State (1943), 78 Ga. App. 526 - Allen v. State (1949)

34 state decisions

160191819201930194019501960decided

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 →

Broyles, P. J.

¶1Where a convicted defendant has been placed on probation and his sentence so molded by the court as to allow him to serve the same outside the confines of the chain-gang, jail, or other place of detention, under the supervision of the court, and in such manner and on such conditions as the court may see fit to impose, in accordance with the provisions of the act of the General Assembly approved August 16, 1913 (Ga. L. 1913, p. 112; Park’s Penal Code, § 1081 a, b, c, d); and thereafter, but prior to the expiration of the sentence, the' probationer is brought before the court on the charge that he has been delinquent in observing the rules prescribed by the court for his conduct, and where, after due examination, the court revokes its leave to the probationer to serve the remainder of his sentence outside the confines of the chain-gang, jail, or other place of detention, this court will not interfere unless • a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court appears. In such a case the judge is the trior of the facts and has a very wide discretion. No abuse of the court’s discretion appears in the instant case.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.
/21/gaapp/795 · .json · Public domain