In the Interest of C. M. B., a Child

781 S.E.2d 570, 335 Ga. App. 456
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 25, 2016
DocketA15A2070
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 781 S.E.2d 570 (In the Interest of C. M. B., a Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Interest of C. M. B., a Child, 781 S.E.2d 570, 335 Ga. App. 456 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

McMlLLIAN, Judge.

This case presents an issue of first impression under the new Juvenile Code — how to calculate the 72-hour period under OCGA § 15-11-521 (a) during which the State must file a delinquency petition following a detention hearing.

The facts are largely undisputed. On Thursday, February 5,2015 at 1:00 p.m., the juvenile court signed an order detaining C. M. B. on various charges, and a delinquency petition was filed against him on Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:24 p.m. At the ten-day hearing on *457 February 18, 2015, C. M. B.’s attorney verbally moved to dismiss the petition and for the release of C. M. B. based on the fact that the petition was not filed by Sunday, February 8,2015 at 1:00 p.m., which he asserted was mandated by the 72-hour rule under OCGA § 15-11-521 (a). The trial court entered an order denying the verbal motion, finding that under OCGA § 15-11-5, the day C. M. B. was detained and the intervening weekend days were not included in calculating the 72-hour period. The trial court found, therefore, that the State had until Tuesday, February 10, 2015 to file its petition, and because the petition was filed on Monday, February 9, it was timely. The trial court later signed a certificate of immediate review of its order, and this appeal follows our grant of C. M. B.’s application for interlocutory appeal.

The record indicates that C. M. B. was initially detained on January 29, 2015, and under OCGA § 15-11-521 (a), 1

[i]f a child is in detention prior to adjudication, a petition alleging delinquency shall be filed not later than 72 hours after the detention hearing. If no petition alleging delinquency is filed within the applicable time, such child shall be released from detention and the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice. . . , 2

The trial court’s “Order Following Detention Hearing for Child Alleged to Be Delinquent Pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-506,” was signed at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 5, 2015, and the parties do not dispute that we calculate the 72-hour period from that time.

To determine whether the delinquency petition was timely, we turn to the applicable provisions of the Juvenile Code, which set how time periods are to be calculated. Under the current version of OCGA § 15-11-5 (a),

[wjhen a period of time measured in days, weeks, months, years, or other measurements of time is prescribed for the exercise of any privilege or the discharge of any duty, the first day shall not be counted but the last day shall be counted; and, if the last day falls on a weekend, the party *458 having such privilege or duty shall have through the following business day to exercise such privilege or discharge such duty.

(Emphasis supplied.) And under OCGA § 15-11-5 (c), “[w]hen the period of time prescribed is less than seven days, intermediate weekends and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.”

In construing these provisions, “we apply the fundamental rules of statutory construction that require us to construe the statute according to its terms, [and] to give words their plain and ordinary meaning.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Lakeview Behavioral Health System, LLC v. UHS Peachford, LP, 321 Ga. App. 820, 822 (1) (743 SE2d 492) (2013). Here, as the trial court found, it is clear that “hours” are a “measurement of time” under OCGA § 15-11-5 (a), and thus the first day when the detention order was signed does not count toward the calculation. Therefore, Friday, February 6, 2015 comprised the first 24 hours of the 72-hour period. However, because seventy-two hours is clearly a period of time that is less than seven days, under OCGA § 15-11-5 (c), intervening weekend days are excluded from the computation, and under the new Juvenile Code, “ ‘[weekend’ means Saturday or Sunday.” OCGA § 15-11-2 (76). Cf. Livingston v. State, 266 Ga. 501 (467 SE2d 886) (1996) (holding under provision of former Juvenile Code that when the 72-hour period expired on a holiday or weekend the detention hearing should be held on the next business day, detention hearing held at 9:00 a.m. Monday was timely where the 72-hour period for holding such a hearing expired at 5:00 a.m. Monday before the court opened for business). Thus, after applying the plain and unambiguous language of OCGA § 15-11-5 (a) and (c), the 72-hour period expired at the end of the day on Tuesday, February 10, and the trial court properly found that the delinquency petition was timely filed.

This interpretation is supported by the legislature’s April 2014 amendment to OCGA § 15-11-5 (a) (the “2014 amendment”). When the statute was enacted in 2013, subsection (a) provided:

When a period of time measured in days, weeks, months, years, or other measurements of time except hours is prescribed for the exercise of any privilege or the discharge of any duty, the first day shall not be counted but the last day shall be counted; and, if the last day falls on a weekend, the party having such privilege or duty shall have through the following business day to exercise such privilege or discharge such duty.

*459 (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, in the original enactment of this provision, the General Assembly expressly excluded periods of time measured by hours from the provisions of OCGA § 15-11-5 (a), but the 2014 amendment deleted the phrase “except hours” from subsection (a). Ga. L. 2014, pp. 780, 781, § 1-2 (Act 635). This amendment became effective upon its approval by the Governor on April 28,2014, Ga. L. 2014, pp. 780, 800, § 5-1, and applies in this case.

The use of the phrase “except hours” in the original version of the statute is plain and unambiguous: OCGA § 15-11-5

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shauna White v. Westlake Financial Services
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
In the Interest of J. H., a Child
783 S.E.2d 367 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
781 S.E.2d 570, 335 Ga. App. 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-c-m-b-a-child-gactapp-2016.