Purdue v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Purdue v. State

316 S.E.2d 166, 170 Ga. App. 18, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1784

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 27, 1984

Docket67753

StatusPublished

This text of 316 S.E.2d 166 (Purdue 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

Purdue v. State, 316 S.E.2d 166, 170 Ga. App. 18, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1784 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. Held:

1. The defendant was charged with violation of his probation conditions as follows: “by failing to take antabuse as directed, by failing to participate in the alcohol counseling program as directed, by failing to report to his Probation Supervisor as directed and by consuming alcoholic beverages on August 3, 1983.”

The evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant violated the terms of his probationary sentence.

2. It is contended that, because the defendant was an alcoholic, his intoxication was not voluntary and could not serve as a basis to revoke his probation.

This issue has been decided adversely to defendant’s contention by this court and the Supreme Court. See Grimes v. Burch, 223 Ga. 856 (159 SE2d 69); McLaughlin v. State, 236 Ga. 577, 579 (4) (224 SE2d 412); Goldsmith v. State, 148 Ga. App. 786, 788 (6) (252 SE2d 657); Ford v. State, 164 Ga. App. 620 (1) (298 SE2d 327). As succinctly held in McLaughlin v. State, 236 Ga. 577, 580, supra, chronic alcoholism does not constitute involuntary intoxication within the meaning of former Code Ann. § 26-704 (now OCGA § 16-3-4).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Carley, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. Held:

1. The defendant was charged with violation of his probation conditions as follows: “by failing to take antabuse as directed, by failing to participate in the alcohol counseling program as directed, by failing to report to his Probation Supervisor as directed and by consuming alcoholic beverages on August 3, 1983.”

The evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant violated the terms of his probationary sentence.

2. It is contended that, because the defendant was an alcoholic, his intoxication was not voluntary and could not serve as a basis to revoke his probation.

This issue has been decided adversely to defendant’s contention by this court and the Supreme Court. See Grimes v. Burch, 223 Ga. 856 (159 SE2d 69); McLaughlin v. State, 236 Ga. 577, 579 (4) (224 SE2d 412); Goldsmith v. State, 148 Ga. App. 786, 788 (6) (252 SE2d 657); Ford v. State, 164 Ga. App. 620 (1) (298 SE2d 327). As succinctly held in McLaughlin v. State, 236 Ga. 577, 580, supra, chronic alcoholism does not constitute involuntary intoxication within the meaning of former Code Ann. § 26-704 (now OCGA § 16-3-4).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Carley, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 S.E.2d 166, 170 Ga. App. 18, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purdue-v-state-gactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack