Georgia v. Davis

In 1995, Barry Davis pled guilty to aggravated sodomy against his six-year-old daughter and was sentenced to ten years with two to serve in confinement. After the enactment of OCGA 42-1-12 in 1996, he was required to register for life as a sex offender upon his release on probation. After his release from prison, Davis’ probation terminated on July 15, 2005. On February 13, 2013, Davis obtained a pardon from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Shortly after receiving the pardon, Davis moved to North Carolina without providing notice within 72 hours to the Chatham County Sheriff as required of sex offenders by OCGA 42-1-12 (f) (5). He was indicted for violation of that Code section by “fail[ing] to update his address, required registration information, with the Sheriff of Chatham County. . . within 72 hours prior to such change of residence . . . .” He filed a general demurrer to the indictment for failure to charge a criminal offense, contending that the requirement to register as a sex offender was removed by the pardon. The trial court found that, in the absence of express language in the Board’s decree, Davis’ pardon did not release him from the obligation to register as a sex offender. It therefore denied the general demurrer. The Georgia Supreme Court granted this petition for certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s constitutional question jurisdiction was invoked by the issue of the authority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles to remove the requirements imposed upon sex offenders by OCGA 42-1-12 under its constitutional power “to remove disabilities imposed by law;” and (2) if yes, then whether the trial court erred in concluding that the registration and reporting requirements of that Code section were not a “disability” within the meaning of the Board’s constitutional powers, and therefore denying Davis’ general demurrer. The Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, therefore finding it had to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, decide the constitutional claims presented by this petition, and reverse the trial court’s judgment. View "Georgia v. Davis" on Justia Law