In the Interest of J. H., a Child

783 S.E.2d 367, 335 Ga. App. 848
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 11, 2016
DocketA15A2157
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 783 S.E.2d 367 (In the Interest of J. H., 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 J. H., a Child, 783 S.E.2d 367, 335 Ga. App. 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Barnes, Presiding Judge.

The sole issue in this case involves the juvenile court’s interpretation of OCGA § 15-11-523, which governs the amendment of a juvenile delinquency petition. After a delinquency hearing had commenced, the juvenile court permitted the prosecuting attorney to orally amend the petition to prosecute one of the charges — Criminal Gang Activity — as a Designated Felony. This court granted the juvenile’s application for interlocutory appeal, and for the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s order allowing the amendment.

The State filed a petition seeking an adjudication of delinquency against 15-year-old J. H., alleging that he had committed four offenses that would have constituted crimes if he had been an adult: burglary, reckless driving, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and criminal gang activity. After the adjudication hearing began on April 28, 2015, J. H. entered admissions to the first three offenses of burglary, reckless driving, and fleeing or attempting to elude, but denied the charge of gang activity. After advising J. H. of his rights and asking the prosecutor what the evidence would show regarding those charges, the juvenile court found a factual basis for the admissions and accepted them. The court then instructed the prosecuting attorney to call the first witness on the offense of gang activity.

At that point in the adjudication hearing, the parties and the court held a discussion regarding the fact that the delinquency petition did not indicate that the fourth count was a Designated Felony, which was required under the revised Juvenile Code. The prosecuting attorney orally moved to amend the delinquency petition to state that the offense was being prosecuted under the Designated Felony provisions of Title 15. J. H. objected, asserting that jeopardy had already attached and that such an amendment was barred by statute.

*849 The trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion to amend, reasoning that the prosecutor was not adding a new charge of delinquency, but was merely amending the petition to correct the pleading defect of having omitted the label of “Designated Felony.” At that point the court continued the hearing on the delinquency petition to give J. H. an opportunity to file a petition for a certificate of immediate review, although it committed J. H. to two years in custody based on a previous petition during which J. H. had been adjudicated delinquent based on three counts of terroristic threats.

J. H. argues on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to amend the petition after jeopardy had attached.

Under Georgia’s rules of statutory construction, this court is charged with looking “diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA § 1-3-1 (a). A fundamental principle of statutory construction is “that we must endeavor to give each part of the statute meaning and avoid a construction that makes some language mere surplusage.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C. M. B., 335 Ga. App. 456, 460 (781 SE2d 570) (2016).

Further, “all statutés relating to the same subject-matter, briefly called statutes ‘in pari materia,’ are construed together, and harmonized wherever possible, so as to ascertain the legislative intendment and give effect thereto.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of H. E. B., 303 Ga. App. 895, 896 (695 SE2d 332) (2010).

The Georgia legislature revised the Juvenile Code effective January 1, 2014. 1 Both the previous code and the current code direct that the delinquency petition “shall set forth plainly and with particularity’ certain information, such as the facts that brought the child within the court’s jurisdiction, the name and address of the child and his parents, guardians, or custodians if known, and details of the child’s detention, if any. OCGA § 15-11-522 (2015); former OCGA § 15-11-38.1. In the new code effective January 2014, the legislature added a requirement that the petition include whether “[the] child is being charged with a class A designated felony act or class B designated felony act.” OCGA § 15-11-522 (5).

Whether a juvenile is adjudicated for committing a Designated Felony or simply a delinquent act significantly alters the length of the commitment available. The maximum length of commitment for a delinquent act is 24 months, with the possibility of a 24-month *850 extension. OCGA § 15-11-607 (a). In contrast, an adjudication of delinquency for a Class A Designated Felony may result in restrictive custody with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for as long as 60 months, and for a Class B Felony, in DJJ custody for 36 months, with a maximum of 18 months in restrictive custody. See OCGA § 15-11-602 (a) (2), (c) (1), (d) (1).

Before the enactment of the current Juvenile Code, the State was allowed to amend a delinquency petition to add charges at any time before adjudication. The statute was silent on the issue, but the Uniform Rules of Juvenile Court, Rule 6.6 provided: “A petition may be amended at any time prior to adjudication, provided that the court shall grant the parties additional time to prepare as may be required to ensure a full and fair hearing.” Further, if the amendment added additional charges, the amended petition had to be served in accordance with former OCGA §§ 15-11-39 and 15-11-39.1, which directed that the petition and a summons be served on the child and his or her parents, guardians, or legal custodians at least 24 hours before the hearing. See In the Interest of D. W., 232 Ga. App. 777, 779 (1) (a) (503 SE2d 647) (1998) (reversing delinquency conviction when court allowed State to amend a delinquency petition mid-hearing to revise misdemeanor battery charge to designated felony charge of battery against school official, absent service and notice).

The revised Juvenile Code includes a completely new provision that addresses the timing of delinquency petition amendments. OCGA § 15-11-523 provides:

(a) A prosecuting attorney may amend a petition alleging delinquency at any time prior to the commencement of the adjudication hearing. However, if an amendment is made, a child may request a continuance of his or her adjudication hearing.

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

Related

In the Interest of E. T., a Child
804 S.E.2d 725 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
Douglas County, Georgia v. Hamilton State Bank
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017
Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank
798 S.E.2d 509 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
783 S.E.2d 367, 335 Ga. App. 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-j-h-a-child-gactapp-2016.