D.C. v. State of Georgia — Court of Appeals of Georgia (Apr. 19, 1978)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Glynn Juvenile Court finding the juvenile defendant delinquent. The delinquent act was alleged to have occurred on May 18, 1977; the delinquency petition was filed on August 23, 1977. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeals, with Quillian presiding. The record does not show that the juvenile was brought before the juvenile court or delivered to a detention or shelter care facility and then released following that presentation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the transcript's lack of preparation by a certified court reporter (or certification by one) constitutes reversible error.
Whether the delinquency petition should have been dismissed for failure to present the petition within 30 days under Code Ann. § 24A-1404(b).
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the delinquency finding and whether the juvenile court judge's remarks demonstrated bias or prejudice requiring reversal.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
K. E. S. v. State of Ga., 134 Ga. App. 843, 849 (4) (216 S.E.2d 670)	Establishes that Code Ann. § 24A-1801(b) mandates that juvenile court hearings be recorded (by stenographic notes or by electronic, mechanical, or other appropriate means).	The court relied on this precedent to conclude the statute requires a recorded proceeding but does not require that the transcript be prepared or certified by a certified court reporter; because a transcript existed, the enumeration regarding certification was meritless.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed the enumerated errors in sequence:

Transcript certification: The court cited K. E. S. v. State of Ga. and Code Ann. § 24A-1801(b) to reiterate that juvenile proceedings must be recorded by stenographic notes or electronic/mechanical means unless waived. The statute, however, contains no requirement that a certified court reporter prepare or certify the transcript. Because a transcript was present in the record, the court found no merit to the objection that a certified court reporter did not prepare or certify it.
Timeliness under Code Ann. § 24A-1404(b): The court examined the scope of § 24A-1404(b), which imposes a 30-day requirement for filing a petition when a juvenile is released after being brought before the court or delivered to a detention/shelter facility following custodial handling. The court concluded the 30-day rule applies only where the juvenile was taken into custody and then presented or detained as described. Because the record contained nothing showing the juvenile had been brought before the court or delivered to such a facility and then released, the 30-day requirement did not apply; overruling the motion to dismiss was not error.
Sufficiency of the evidence and alleged judicial bias: The court found the evidence sufficient to support the delinquency judgment. Although the judge may have made inappropriate comments during a colloquy (including remarks suggesting he did not find the requisite intent for criminal trespass and an alleged dislike of defense counsel), the appellate court was not persuaded that the ruling resulted from bias or prejudice. Thus the adjudication was upheld.

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed.

Direct effect: The juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; the petition was not dismissed and the delinquency finding stands. The opinion notes rehearing was denied on May 9, 1978 and that certiorari was applied for. The opinion does not announce any new legal rule beyond its application of existing statute and precedent, and it does not address broader implications beyond the parties.

Show full summary ...

D.C. v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

QUILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal was taken to this court from a judgment finding the juvenile defendant to be delinquent. Held:

1. The first enumeration of error is: "The transcript of this case was not taken by a certified court reporter nor prepared by a certified court reporter, nor is it certified by a certified court reporter."

In K. E. S. v. State of Ga., 134 Ga. App. 843, 849 (4) ( 216 S.E.2d 670) we held that Code Ann. § 24A-1801 (b) (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 729; 1974, pp. 1126, 1130) mandates that a hearing before a juvenile court be recorded. Code Ann. § 24A-1801 (b) provides: "Unless waived by the juvenile and his parent, guardian or attorney, the proceedings shall be recorded by stenographic notes or by electronic, mechanical, or other appropriate means."

There is a transcript in this case and the statute contains no requirement with regard to a certified court reporter. Hence, this enumeration of error is meritless.

2. It is contended that the court erred by failing to dismiss the delinquency petition for failure to present the petition within the time prescribed by Code Ann. § 24A-1404 (b) (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 725; 1977, pp. 1237, 1242, eff. Dec. 31, 1977). That section reads: "If he is released and the case is to be further prosecuted other than by informal adjustment, a petition under section 24A-1603 shall be made and presented to the court within 30 days."

The delinquent act was alleged to have been committed on May 18, 1977, while the petition was filed August 23, 1977.

Code Ann. § 24A-1404 (b) has no application unless a juvenile is taken into custody (see Code Ann. § 24A-1301; Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 722; 1976, pp. 1066, 1069), not released under Code Ann. § 24A-1402 (a) (1) (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 723, pp. 882, 885), but instead brought before the juvenile court or delivered to a detention or shelter care facility designated by the court (Code Ann. § 24A-1402 (a) (2)) and then released after an investigation under Code § 24A-1404 (a).

There is nothing to show here that the juvenile was brought before the court or delivered to a detention or shelter care facility and then released. Hence, insofar as the record reveals there was no basis for application of the 30 day time requirement of Code Ann. § 24A-1404 (b) to the instant petition. It was not error to overrule the motion to dismiss the petition.

3. The remaining enumerations of error are addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence. It is urged that during a colloquy between the juvenile court judge and counsel for defendant, the judge indicated he did not find the necessary intent to show the offense of criminal trespass and further that the judge ruled because he disliked defense counsel.

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the judgment rendered. While the judge may have made inappropriate comments during the colloquy, we are not prepared to find the ruling was the result of bias or prejudice.

Judgment affirmed. Webb and McMurray, JJ., concur.