Hedden v. State, 288 Ga. 871

Hedden and Hutto pled guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of children by knowingly possessing images depicting minors in sexually explicit conduct, per OCGA § 16-12-100(b)(8).
OCGA § 17-10-6.2 requires a minimum prison term for certain sexual offenses, with limited discretionary deviation allowed.
The statute lists factors (A)-(F) for deviation; (F) prohibits deviation if the victim was physically restrained during the offense.
Each defendant’s computers contained at least one image showing a child being physically restrained, leading the trial court to deem them ineligible for deviation and to impose concurrent fifteen-year terms (five years in prison, rest on probation).
Court of Appeals affirmed; Hedden v. State, 301 Ga. App. 854, 690 S.E.2d 203 (2010).
Georgia Supreme Court reverses, holding that the phrase "during the commission of the offense" in OCGA § 17-10-6.2(c)(1)(F) requires evidence that the restraint occurred at the time the offense was committed, which was not shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 17-10-6.2(c)(1)(F) precludes deviation when victim restraint is depicted	Hedden/Hutto argue statutory text requires restraint evidence to bar deviation.	State contends restraint pictures show victim was restrained, foreclosing deviation.	No; missing restraint evidence during offense allows deviation.
Whether the trial court erred by relying on pictures to deny discretion	Hedden/Hutto contend no evidence shows restraint during offense at possession time.	State relies on presence of restrained images to deny deviation.	Yes; court must examine timing—restraint must coincide with offense.
Whether Court of Appeals correctly applied the statutory language	Court of Appeals misread F as eliminating discretion merely because images show restraint somewhere.	Court should treat restraint as dispositive when clearly tied to offense.	Court of Appeals erred; statute requires proper timing of restraint.
What is the proper remedy for misapplication of § 17-10-6.2	Judgments should be reversed to allow deviation if discretion exists.	Judgments should be affirmed if statutory elements preclude deviation.	Judgments reversed; discretion to deviate exists where restraint evidence not shown at offense time.

Hedden v. State, 301 Ga. App. 854 (2010) (Court of Appeals decision addressing 17-10-6.2 interpretation and restraint language)
Davis v. State, 273 Ga. 14 (2000) (statutory construction principles; strict against the State)
Harris v. State, 286 Ga. 245 (2009) (avoid surplusage; strict construction in criminal statutes)