Court Opinion

ID: 9854218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:03:19.283649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:58.740722
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
The qualifications for the office of sheriff are set forth in Code Ann. § 24-2801 (Ga. L. 1977, pp. 1171, 1172; 1978, pp. 244, 245). The relevant qualification in this case is § 24-2801 (c) (1), “Have not been convicted of a felony offense or any offense involving moral turpitude contrary to the laws of this State, or any other State, or the United States.” The issue here is whether the pardon eliminated the disqualification under § 24-2801 (c) (1) (F) resulting from the appellant’s previous conviction.
Since the controlling statute does not make any provision regarding the legal effect of pardons, it is necessary to construe it in pari materia with other relevant statutory and Constitutional law. See Ryan v. Commrs. of Chatham County, 203 Ga. 730, 731-732 (48 SE2d 86) (1948). The State Board of Pardons and Paroles has the power to grant pardons and to remove disabilities imposed by law. Ga. Const. Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. I (Code Ann. § 2-2001). Art. II, Sec. II, *195Par. I of the Constitution (Code § 2-501) states that previously convicted felons can not hold public office “unless such persons shall have been pardoned.” Code § 89-101 (3) disqualifies convicted felons from holding public office “unless restored by a pardon ...” Code § 89-101 (8) provides that “[a]ll officers are eligible to reelection and reappointment and to hold other offices, unless expressly declared to the contrary by the Constitution or laws.” (Code Ann. § 24-2801 does not expressly disqualify one who has been pardoned of a felony from seeking the office of sheriff). Code Ann. § 77-528 (Ga. L. 1943, pp. 185, 195) provides: “Following the effective date of this Chapter, all pardons shall relieve from civil and political disabilities.”
This court has held that “the grant of a pardon restores one to full rights of citizenship ..., including the right to hold public office, and operates to remove all blot and stain growing out of a previous conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude ...” (Emphasis supplied.) Morris v. Hartsfield, 186 Ga. 171 (3) (197 SE 251) (1938). “An attorney who has been disbarred by virtue of having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is not as a matter of law forever barred from the practice of law, where such attorney has been granted a full pardon of the crime for which he was convicted.” Scott v. Leathers, 78 Ga. App. 661 (1) (52 SE2d 40) (1949).
It is not reasonable to conclude that the 1977 amendment to the Georgia Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-5808.1) even attempted to grant the General Assembly the power to deprive the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of its constitutional power to remove disabilities imposed by law by way of pardons, or to abrogate the other constitutional provisions above cited, which specifically qualify a pardoned felon to hold public office.
Nor does the statement of intent of the General Assembly in Code Ann. § 24-2801 (a) require a finding that such long-standing constitutional, statutory and case law be changed. The mere fact that § 24-2801 (c) (1) (F) does not contain a provision pertaining to pardon, is not sufficient to eliminate from our body of laws by implication this well-established provision. Any such drastic amendment must be by more specific legislative pronouncement to be given effect. An analysis of the provisions of Code Ann. § 24-2801 indicates that the apparent legislative intent was to provide for higher and stricter educational and training requirements.
It does not appear that the General Assembly intended that a pardoned felon could not run for the office of sheriff when the constitution and statutes would allow the same person to run for any other office in the State from justice of the peace to Governor, nor that the General Assembly in any way intended to deprive the Pardons and Parole Board of its power to restore disabilities *196imposed by law.
Accordingly, I would hold that the appellant’s disqualification as a result of his felony conviction was removed by his pardon, and that the trial court erred in denying his writ of mandamus.
I am authorized to state that Justice Nichols and Justice Hill join in this dissent.