In the Interest of L. D. J.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of L. D. J.

371 S.E.2d 133, 187 Ga. App. 610, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 841

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1988

Docket76713

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 371 S.E.2d 133 (In the Interest of L. D. J.) 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 L. D. J., 371 S.E.2d 133, 187 Ga. App. 610, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was arrested and charged in juvenile court with armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, pointing a pistol at another, carrying a pistol without a license, carrying a concealed weapon, and theft by receiving stolen property. The juvenile court entered an order transferring the case to superior court for prosecution of the appellant as an adult; and the appellant filed this appeal, contending that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was not committable to an institution for the mentally ill or mentally retarded, as required by OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) (B), and that the state failed to establish the non-availability of rehabilitative [611]*611alternatives through the juvenile justice system.

Decided June 22, 1988. Steven A. Hathorn, for appellant. John M. Ott, District Attorney, for appellee.

It was shown that the appellant had twice been placed in community-based rehabilitation programs but had failed in both instances to successfully complete the program’s trial period. It was further shown that the appellant had been committed to a Youth Development Center (YDC) as a sentence for prior criminal misconduct, that he had served his maximum sentence there without reduction for good behavior, and that he had been arrested on the present charges while on probation after being released from the YDC. A court services worker who had worked with the appellant prior to his arrest on the present charges testified that the YDC was the harshest treatment alternative available in the juvenile justice system and that if the appellant were sent back to a YDC, the services and treatment available to him would be essentially the same as before. A clinical psychologist who had examined and evaluated the appellant testified that although the appellant was of relatively low intelligence, he was not retarded, and that he “would not be committable to a mental hospital at this time.” There was no testimony to the contrary. Held:

Based on the foregoing evidence, as well as other evidence introduced in support of the transfer motion, the trial court was authorized to conclude that all of the statutory requirements imposed by OCGA § 15-11-39 for the transfer of the case to superior court had been met and that it would be fruitless to attempt further rehabilitative efforts through the juvenile justice system. We accordingly hold that the court did not abusé its discretion in granting the transfer motion. Accord D. T. R. v. State of Ga., 174 Ga. App. 695 (331 SE2d 70) (1985). See also In the Interest of J. J. S., 246 Ga. 617, 618 (272 SE2d 294) (1980).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was arrested and charged in juvenile court with armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, pointing a pistol at another, carrying a pistol without a license, carrying a concealed weapon, and theft by receiving stolen property. The juvenile court entered an order transferring the case to superior court for prosecution of the appellant as an adult; and the appellant filed this appeal, contending that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was not committable to an institution for the mentally ill or mentally retarded, as required by OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) (B), and that the state failed to establish the non-availability of rehabilitative [611]*611alternatives through the juvenile justice system.

Decided June 22, 1988. Steven A. Hathorn, for appellant. John M. Ott, District Attorney, for appellee.

It was shown that the appellant had twice been placed in community-based rehabilitation programs but had failed in both instances to successfully complete the program’s trial period. It was further shown that the appellant had been committed to a Youth Development Center (YDC) as a sentence for prior criminal misconduct, that he had served his maximum sentence there without reduction for good behavior, and that he had been arrested on the present charges while on probation after being released from the YDC. A court services worker who had worked with the appellant prior to his arrest on the present charges testified that the YDC was the harshest treatment alternative available in the juvenile justice system and that if the appellant were sent back to a YDC, the services and treatment available to him would be essentially the same as before. A clinical psychologist who had examined and evaluated the appellant testified that although the appellant was of relatively low intelligence, he was not retarded, and that he “would not be committable to a mental hospital at this time.” There was no testimony to the contrary. Held:

Based on the foregoing evidence, as well as other evidence introduced in support of the transfer motion, the trial court was authorized to conclude that all of the statutory requirements imposed by OCGA § 15-11-39 for the transfer of the case to superior court had been met and that it would be fruitless to attempt further rehabilitative efforts through the juvenile justice system. We accordingly hold that the court did not abusé its discretion in granting the transfer motion. Accord D. T. R. v. State of Ga., 174 Ga. App. 695 (331 SE2d 70) (1985). See also In the Interest of J. J. S., 246 Ga. 617, 618 (272 SE2d 294) (1980).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 S.E.2d 133, 187 Ga. App. 610, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-l-d-j-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack