Bishop v. the State
341 Ga. App. 590
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2000 Danielle Bishop pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine and received two years probation.
- In October 2015 Bishop filed a petition under OCGA § 42-8-66(d) seeking retroactive first-offender treatment and discharge, alleging she was not informed of her eligibility at sentencing.
- The 2015 legislative act (HB 310), effective July 1, 2015, amended the first-offender scheme and included an effectiveness clause stating the Act “shall apply to sentences entered on or after” July 1, 2015.
- The State argued the statutory petition and procedures apply only to sentences entered on or after July 1, 2015, so Bishop’s 2000 sentence was ineligible.
- The trial court dismissed Bishop’s petition on that ground; Bishop appealed claiming the trial court should have reached the merits.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statute’s plain language precludes retroactive application to sentences entered before July 1, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Bishop's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 42-8-66(d) relief is available to defendants sentenced before July 1, 2015 | The Act is remedial and grants legislative grace; courts should apply it retroactively to provide relief to eligible persons like Bishop | The Act’s effectiveness clause limits application to sentences entered on or after July 1, 2015, excluding pre-2015 sentences | The court held the statute’s plain language controls: relief not available for sentences entered before July 1, 2015 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Whittle, 339 Ga. App. 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles; presume legislature meant what it said)
- Patten v. United States, 116 F.3d 1029 (4th Cir. 1997) (effective date provision has force even if not codified)
- Canton Textile Mills v. Lathem, 253 Ga. 102 (Ga. 1984) (general rule that laws operate prospectively unless language or purpose requires retrospection)
- Mosley v. Lowe, 298 Ga. 363 (Ga. 2016) (amended statute applied retroactively when clear, unambiguous text required it)
- Allen v. Wright, 282 Ga. 9 (Ga. 2007) (courts should not rewrite statutes to avoid preemption or other problems; legislative fixes are for the General Assembly)