Printup v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Printup v. State

284 S.E.2d 82, 159 Ga. App. 574, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2699

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1981

Docket61856

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 S.E.2d 82 (Printup 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

Printup v. State, 284 S.E.2d 82, 159 Ga. App. 574, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2699 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

This case is controlled by Code Ann. § 27-2529 and Wright v. State, 154 Ga. App. 400, 402 (3) (268 SE2d 378). Code Ann. § 27-2529 provides that “[i]n any case” (emphasis supplied) where the judge may place the defendant on probation, a fine not to exceed $10,000 may be imposed as a condition to probation. Appellant, a pharmacist, plead guilty to four counts of the sale of controlled substances in violation of Code Ann. §§ 79A-808 and 79A-810. Under Code Ann. § 79A-811 (h), he could have been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each count, or forty years. Instead he received a sentence of two years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently and $40,000 as a condition to three years probation on each count after service of the concurrent two-year sentences. The sentences are not subject to complaint.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Judge.

This case is controlled by Code Ann. § 27-2529 and Wright v. State, 154 Ga. App. 400, 402 (3) (268 SE2d 378). Code Ann. § 27-2529 provides that “[i]n any case” (emphasis supplied) where the judge may place the defendant on probation, a fine not to exceed $10,000 may be imposed as a condition to probation. Appellant, a pharmacist, plead guilty to four counts of the sale of controlled substances in violation of Code Ann. §§ 79A-808 and 79A-810. Under Code Ann. § 79A-811 (h), he could have been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each count, or forty years. Instead he received a sentence of two years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently and $40,000 as a condition to three years probation on each count after service of the concurrent two-year sentences. The sentences are not subject to complaint.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.E.2d 82, 159 Ga. App. 574, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/printup-v-state-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack