Court Opinion

ID: 9560266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:46:21.816349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:36.035918
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
While I concur in the majority’s holding regarding Dunn’s challenge to OCGA § 42-1-12 (f) (5), I do so because I agree only that that statute, as applied to Dunn, is not unconstitutionally vague. It is well established that vagueness challenges to criminal statutes that do not implicate First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case to be decided. Santos v. State, 284 Ga. 514 (1) (668 SE2d 676) (2008). See also Raber v. State, 285 Ga. 251 (674 SE2d 884) (2009) (noting that criminal statute may also be shown to be impermissibly vague in all of its applications). As the majority correctly notes, while a person may have only one domicile, he or she may have more than one residence. Maj. Op., p. 241. The facts in this case clearly established that Dunn, after departing his prior domicile, took up temporary residency in the motel but failed to register his address change with the Gordon County Sheriff s Office within 72 hours. This conduct was constitutionally proscribed by OCGA § 42-1-12 (f) (5).