Nixon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nixon v. State

271 S.E.2d 44, 155 Ga. App. 395, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2597

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 16, 1980

Docket60272

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 S.E.2d 44 (Nixon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nixon v. State, 271 S.E.2d 44, 155 Ga. App. 395, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2597 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This appeal follows a revocation of probation for failure to make payments on a fine as required by the probation order. The evidence adduced at the hearing is consistent with appellant’s contention that his failure in this regard was involuntary due to his indigency. In all pertinent respects, the facts essential to this decision are the same as those involved in Wood v. State, 150 Ga. App. 582 (258 SE2d 171) (1979). The result here, as in Wood, is controlled by Hunter v. Dean, 240 Ga. 214 (239 SE2d 791) (1977), where it was held that “a requirement that a defendant pay a fine as a condition precedent to serving a condition on probation ... (does not] ... violate the equal protection or due process provisions of the United States Constitution, even ‘when the defendant is indigent and unable to make immediate payment of the fine.’ See generally Code Ann. § 27-2709.”

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Judge.

This appeal follows a revocation of probation for failure to make payments on a fine as required by the probation order. The evidence adduced at the hearing is consistent with appellant’s contention that his failure in this regard was involuntary due to his indigency. In all pertinent respects, the facts essential to this decision are the same as those involved in Wood v. State, 150 Ga. App. 582 (258 SE2d 171) (1979). The result here, as in Wood, is controlled by Hunter v. Dean, 240 Ga. 214 (239 SE2d 791) (1977), where it was held that “a requirement that a defendant pay a fine as a condition precedent to serving a condition on probation ... (does not] ... violate the equal protection or due process provisions of the United States Constitution, even ‘when the defendant is indigent and unable to make immediate payment of the fine.’ See generally Code Ann. § 27-2709.”

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 S.E.2d 44, 155 Ga. App. 395, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack