Miller v. Anderson

519 S.W.2d 826, 1975 Ky. LEXIS 181
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 7, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 519 S.W.2d 826 (Miller v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Anderson, 519 S.W.2d 826, 1975 Ky. LEXIS 181 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

STERNBERG, Justice.

Petitioner seeks to have this court enjoin the Honorable Reed D. Anderson, Judge of the Pike Circuit Court, First Division, from trying him for the offense of rape. Petitioner, who was a minor at the time the offense was committed, was indicted by the grand jury of Pike County, Kentucky, for the offense of rape. On motion duly made, the indictment was dismissed and petitioner was remanded to the Juvenile Court of Pike County. Proceedings were commenced in the Pike County Juvenile Court but as yet have not been concluded.

Petitioner attained his eighteenth birthday and, subsequent thereto, he was again indicted by the grand jury of Pike County for the offense of rape. The respondent judge overruled a motion to dismiss the present indictment and, although there has been no disposition of the proceedings in the juvenile court, is threatening to bring the present indictment on for trial. Petitioner charges, (1) that since the proceedings in the juvenile court have not been disposed of, the circuit court does not at this time have jurisdiction of the petitioner, and (2) that petitioner should not be required to undergo the rigors of preparation for and conduct of a trial with an appeal to this court in order to present this jurisdictional question.

KRS 208.020 provides:

“(1) The juvenile session of the county court of each county shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child, living, or found, within the county and has not reached his eighteenth birthday:
(a) Who has committed a public offense * * *.”

KRS 208.060 sets out the conduct of hearings and specifically provides in subsection (2) thereof that the juvenile proceedings shall consist of two distinct hearings, an adjudication and a disposition, which may, upon motion of the child, be held on separate days. KRS 208.190 provides:

“Decree in proceedings concerning children who are charged with crime.— When a child before the juvenile court, whether by petition pursuant to KRS [827]*827208.070 or by reason of having been taken into custody pursuant to KRS 208. 110, is found by the court to come within the purview of KRS 208.020, the court shall so decree and in its decree shall make a finding of the facts upon which the court exercises its jurisdiction over the child. If the court finds that the child does not come within the purview of KRS 208.020, the child shall be discharged and the proceedings dismissed. (Enact. Acts 19S2, Ch. 161, § 19.)”

KRS 208.200 provides:

“Probation or commitment of child convicted of public offense, or who is delinquent, neglected, needy or dependent. — (1) If in its decree the juvenile court finds that the child comes within the purview of subsections (1) or (2) of KRS 208.020, the court may, by order:”
(a) Place the child on probation subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court until he becomes twenty-one years of age; (paraphrased)
(b) Commit the child to a private or public institution until he becomes twenty-one years of age; (paraphrased)
(c) Commit the child to the Department of Child Welfare until he becomes twenty-one years of age. (paraphrased)

The case of Lowry v. Commonwealth, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 841, presented the question of “Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to try the appellant on an indictment made after he became eighteen years of age, when he was under that age at the time of the offense and no proceeding had been commenced in the juvenile session of the county court prior to his becoming eighteen years of age.” In disposing of the case, this court held that the circuit court had jurisdiction and, in doing so, said:

“The present statute, in effect, says that the juvenile court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child who has not reached his eighteenth birthday. It is silent concerning a person who has reached the age of eighteen years before any proceedings are instituted. This is indicative of a legislative intent to restrict proceedings in the juvenile court to persons who are proceeded against therein before becoming eighteen years of age.
“The conclusion is thus reached that under the language of KRS 208.020, the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction only when the proceedings are instituted against a child who has not reached his eighteenth birthday.”

It is to be noted that this court said that the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction only when the proceedings are instituted against the child who has not reached his eighteenth birthday. In the case at bar, proceedings had been instituted in the Pike County Juvenile Court prior to petitioner’s eighteenth birthday and they have not as yet been disposed of.

In Locke v. Commonwealth, Ky., 503 S.W.2d 729, Locke was seventeen years of age at the time he committed the offense of armed robbery. He was arrested, taken before the Juvenile Court of Fayette County and, after holding a hearing, that court released him from custody. The order of the juvenile court provided that the charges had been adjusted informally and were then dismissed. Locke, by the juvenile court, was permitted to go without restraint upon his liberty and freedom and without prosecution for the charges. Subsequently, he was indicted for the same offense by the grand jury of Fayette County, Kentucky. He was convicted and, on appeal to this court, contended that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction for the reason that he was under the age of eighteen years at the time the offense was committed and proceedings were duly instituted against him in the juvenile court. In differentiating this case from others, this [828]

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

Related

State v. Lindstrom
2011 Ohio 6755 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Jacobs v. Commonwealth
947 S.W.2d 416 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1997)
Johnson v. Commonwealth
606 S.W.2d 622 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1980)
Johnson v. Bishop
587 S.W.2d 284 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
519 S.W.2d 826, 1975 Ky. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-anderson-kyctapp-1975.