In the Interest of L. J. V.

349 S.E.2d 37, 180 Ga. App. 400, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2167
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 23, 1986
Docket72677
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 349 S.E.2d 37 (In the Interest of L. J. V.) 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. J. V., 349 S.E.2d 37, 180 Ga. App. 400, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2167 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinions

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

On September 15, 1985, L. J. V. was charged by uniform traffic citation with the offense of speeding (88 mph in a 55 mph zone). At that time L. J. V. was 16 years of age. The summons required L. J. V. to appear in the State Court of Cherokee County to answer this charge.

Subsequently, L. J. V. filed her motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative to transfer to the Juvenile Court of Bartow County (the county of L. J. V.’s residence). L. J. V.’s motion was predicated upon her contention that the State Court of Cherokee County lacked jurisdiction of the charges against her because juvenile courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over the charges against her. The trial court denied L. J. V.’s motion and following a trial before the court without a jury, L. J. V. was found guilty of the offense of speeding and sentenced accordingly. L. J. V. appeals, enumerating as error the denial of her motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Held:

The juvenile courts “shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over juvenile matters and shall be the sole court for initiating action: (1) Concerning any child: (A) Who is alleged to be delinquent, except when the allegation is based on a delinquent act which would be con[401]*401sidered a crime if tried in a superior court and for which the child may be punished by loss of life or confinement for life in a penal institution.” OCGA § 15-11-5 (a) (1) (A). At the time of the offense L. J. V. was a child as defined by OCGA § 15-11-2 (2) (A), in that she was under the age of 17. “Delinquent act” as defined by statute includes “An act designated a crime by the laws of this state, or by the laws of another state if the act occurred in that state, under federal laws, or by local ordinance, and the crime does not fall under sub-paragraph (12) (C) of this Code section and is not a juvenile traffic offense as defined in Code Section 15-11-49.” OCGA § 15-11-2 (6) (A).

L. J. V. was charged with speeding, a violation of OCGA § 40-6-181, which is an act designated a crime by OCGA § 40-6-1. Thus, the offense allegedly committed by L. J. V. is a “delinquent act” unless one of the exceptions in OCGA § 15-11-2 (6) (A) are applicable. The first exception involving offenses applicable only to a child is clearly inapplicable. The second exception involving the provision of OCGA § 15-11-49 relating to juvenile traffic offenses is inapplicable as it involves traffic offenses by persons under the age of 16 (L. J. V. was 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offense).

Consequently, we conclude that exclusive original jurisdiction of the charges against L. J. V. was vested in the juvenile courts of either Bartow County (the county of L. J. V.’s residence) or Cherokee County (the county in which the acts constituting the offense occurred). See in this regard OCGA § 15-11-15. In reaching this conclusion we find no conflict between OCGA § 15-7-4, which provides the state court with jurisdiction of “criminal cases below the grade of felony,” and OCGA § 15-11-5 (a) (1) (A), which provides the juvenile court with exclusive original jurisdiction of the charges against L. J. V. See in this regard OCGA § 15-11-39 regarding transfer of certain delinquency cases from the juvenile court to other appropriate courts.

Although L. J. V. reached the age of 17 prior to her trial and sentencing, indeed prior to the filing of her motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, such did not remedy the jurisdictional deficit of the State Court of Cherokee County at issue. See OCGA § 15-11-39 (c).

Judgment reversed.

Carley, J., concurs. Pope, J., concurs specially.

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

Related

In the Interest of J. B. W.
497 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
In the Interest of R. W.
368 S.E.2d 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
In the Interest of M. L. R.
362 S.E.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Owen v. Owen
359 S.E.2d 229 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
In the Interest of L. J. V.
349 S.E.2d 37 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 S.E.2d 37, 180 Ga. App. 400, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-l-j-v-gactapp-1986.