Hicks v. McGee
289 Ga. 573
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Amended sentencing order reduced McGee's maximum release date from June 27, 2003 to May 27, 2001, creating a potential sentence modification.
- Blanton received the amended order on July 20, 2000, signed it as 'received', but did not read it or recognize it as a sentencing order.
- Hicks did not notify the DOC of the amended sentence within 30 working days after receipt as required by OCGA § 42-5-50(a).
- McGee remained incarcerated until March 2003, 22 months past the new release date.
- McGee filed suit in October 2003 alleging Hicks and Blanton breached OCGA § 42-5-50(a); Hicks I denied dismissal; Hicks II reversed on ministerial-duty grounds.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to appellants based on official immunity; Court of Appeals reversed, holding officers breached ministerial duties; Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and rejected official immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended order was a sentencing order and triggered OCGA 42-5-50(a). | McGee asserts it was a sentencing order. | Hicks/Blanton argued no explicit sentencing modification. | Amended order unambiguously involved a sentence and triggered §42-5-50(a). |
| Whether the clerk’s misclassification of the amended order forecloses ministerial duty breach. | McGee alleges failure to notify DOC constitutes breach of ministerial duty. | Appellants claim discretion due to misclassification. | Misclassification does not negate ministerial duty; failure to notify was ministerial. |
| Whether OCGA § 42-5-50(a) imposes official immunity on clerks for ministerial acts. | McGee argues not immune for ministerial breach. | Clerks argued official immunity applies to discretionary acts only. | Clerks are not entitled to official immunity for ministerial duties under § 42-5-50(a). |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine governs this appeal. | Hicks I resolved not to address immunity; law of the case should apply. | Law-of-the-case applies to actual decisions; immunity issue not decided in Hicks I. | Law-of-the-case rule did not control because Hicks I did not decide immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Smith, 285 Ga. 592 (2009) (distinguishes ministerial vs discretionary acts; ministerial if purely instructional)
- Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618 (2010) (discretion vs ministerial when assessing prerequisite decisions)
- Security Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 273 Ga. 44 (2000) (law-of-the-case binding principle in Georgia)
- Nelson v. Spalding County, 249 Ga. 334 (1982) (tests ministerial vs discretionary duties in public offices)
- Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 285 Ga. 184 (2009) (notes limits of law-of-the-case application and immunity relevance)