In the Interest Of: J. S., a Child

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest Of: J. S., a Child

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

DocketA16A1905

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest Of: J. S., a Child (In the Interest Of: J. S., 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. S., a Child, (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ February 24, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1905. IN THE INTEREST OF J. S.

This appeal is taken from an adjudication that J. S. was delinquent by reason of disrupting a public school in violation of OCGA § 20-2-1181 (a), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly disrupt or interfere with the operation of any public school, public school bus, or public school bus stop as designated by local boards of education.” On appeal, J. S. argues that the trial court applied OCGA § 20-2-1181 to him in a manner that rendered the statute unconstitutionally overbroad. Although our Supreme Court has ruled that OCGA § 20-2-1181 (a) is not void for vagueness, it has not ruled on the question whether that statute is overbroad, either facially or as applied. In re D. H., 283 Ga. 556, 557-558 (3) (663 SE2d 139) (2008) (although OCGA § 20-2-1181 was not unconstitutionally vague, an overbroad challenge was waived because not raised below); see also State v. Fielden, 280 Ga. 444, 445-448 (629 SE2d 252) (2006) (though a statute barring behavior that “may reasonably be expected to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting” was “clear and unambiguous,” the same statute was “facially overbroad” and therefore unconstitutional). Because the Supreme Court of Georgia has not ruled on the question whether OCGA § 20-2-1181 is overbroad, either facially or as applied, we TRANSFER this appeal to that Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 02/24/2017 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ February 24, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1905. IN THE INTEREST OF J. S.

This appeal is taken from an adjudication that J. S. was delinquent by reason of disrupting a public school in violation of OCGA § 20-2-1181 (a), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly disrupt or interfere with the operation of any public school, public school bus, or public school bus stop as designated by local boards of education.” On appeal, J. S. argues that the trial court applied OCGA § 20-2-1181 to him in a manner that rendered the statute unconstitutionally overbroad. Although our Supreme Court has ruled that OCGA § 20-2-1181 (a) is not void for vagueness, it has not ruled on the question whether that statute is overbroad, either facially or as applied. In re D. H., 283 Ga. 556, 557-558 (3) (663 SE2d 139) (2008) (although OCGA § 20-2-1181 was not unconstitutionally vague, an overbroad challenge was waived because not raised below); see also State v. Fielden, 280 Ga. 444, 445-448 (629 SE2d 252) (2006) (though a statute barring behavior that “may reasonably be expected to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting” was “clear and unambiguous,” the same statute was “facially overbroad” and therefore unconstitutional). Because the Supreme Court of Georgia has not ruled on the question whether OCGA § 20-2-1181 is overbroad, either facially or as applied, we TRANSFER this appeal to that Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 02/24/2017 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest Of: J. S., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-j-s-a-child-gactapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack