Court Opinion

ID: 9854022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:59:25.407032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:52.653014
License: Public Domain

Ingram, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority opinion which holds that the present order of the Superior Court of Colquitt County is void. A careful reading of the order convinces me that it was intended to require the State Director of Corrections to carry out the duties and responsibilities imposed upon him by law with respect to state male prisoners in Colquitt County. See Code Ann. § 77-309 (c) and (d). These prisoners had "been waiting [in the local jail] for as long as from four to six months, after sentence, before being taken into the State penal system.”
The majority opinion concedes that Code Ann. § 77-309 (d) requires the State Director of Corrections to place state prisoners in an institution within a reasonable time and, by not ruling to the contrary, it tacitly admits that four to six months is an unreasonable period. The majority hold the entire order void because the "superior court judge is without jurisdiction to perform the duties imposed by law on state correctional authorities.”
I will concede that perhaps the judge had no authority to assign these state prisoners to a particular institution but this infirmity should not render the entire order void. The remainder of the order requiring the director to place these state prisoners in a state institution within a reasonable time is exactly what the statute requires the director to dp throughout Georgia. The order includes a finding that the director has not complied with the statute in Colquitt County and the judge merely directs him to do so.
The state complains the director was not given a formal hearing in Colquitt County before the order was entered. This is probably a good technical objection and *519certainly the better practice would be to have a hearing. However, I find it difficult to believe that receipt of the order by the state penal authorities was the first time they realized that state prisoners were being made to wait four to six months in the local jail before being assigned to a state institution. In addition, I note the state’s brief does not dispute the accuracy of the factual findings by the trial judge.
In any event, the failure to give the director a hearing can be considered harmless error when the valid portion of the order is construed as requiring the director merely to carry out the plain mandate of the law to pick up state prisoners within a reasonable time. With this in mind, I am of the opinion that this court erred in declaring the entire order void and would affirm in part and reverse in part this order of the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hall joins in this dissent.