In re Interest of D.V.H., A15A1092.
| Decision Date | 13 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. A15A1092.,A15A1092. |
| Citation | 779 S.E.2d 122 |
| Parties | In the Interest of D.V.H., a child. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
In the Interest of D.V.H., a child.
No. A15A1092.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov. 13, 2015.
Reconsideration Denied Dec. 15, 2015.
Fredric D. Bright, District Attorney, Jospeh M. McKinnon, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
Bethany A. Begnaud, for appellee.
McFADDEN, Judge.
This appeal presents an issue of first impression under Georgia's new Juvenile Code: If the state fails to file a delinquency petition within 30 days after the filing of a complaint against a child, as required by OCGA § 15–11–521(b) (a provision of the new Juvenile Code), does the filing of a new complaint reset the time period for filing the delinquency petition? We conclude that a new complaint that merely reasserts the same factual circumstances as the first complaint does not reset the time period. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's dismissal of the untimely delinquency petitions against D.V.H. in this case.
Under the new juvenile code, a complaint is "the initial document setting out the circumstances that result in a child being brought before the court." OCGA § 15–11–2(14). This definition encompasses the complaints in this case, which took the form of police reports signed by investigating officers that were filed with the juvenile court. In contrast, a petition alleging delinquency "shall be filed by an attorney as set forth in Code Section 15–18–6.1." OCGA § 15–11–520. A petition also shall be verified and shall set forth plainly and with particularity specific information set forth in OCGA § 15–11–522.
In a prior proceeding, the juvenile court dismissed two delinquency petitions against D.V.H. because the state had filed the petitions more than 30 days after the filing of complaints alleging that D.V.H. had violated various criminal laws. The state had moved the juvenile court to extend this 30 day period pursuant to OCGA § 15–11–521(b), which permits the juvenile court to grant such an extension upon a showing of good cause and notice to all of the parties, but the juvenile court denied the state's motion.
New complaints then were filed regarding the same factual circumstances as in the initial complaints. Within 30 days of the filing of the new complaints, the state filed the delinquency petitions at issue in this appeal. The juvenile court granted D.V.H.'s motion to dismiss the new delinquency petitions, holding that "the time limits in the [j]uvenile [c]ourts of this [s]tate must be strictly construed and ... refiling a case under a new number to reset the time limits circumvents the purpose of the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Interest of J.F.
...procedurally similar cases, which were issued just three days apart: In the Interest of M.D.H.,1 decided on November 10, 2015, and In the Interest of D.V.H.,2 decided on November 13, 2015. However, on March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued an order granting petitions for a writ ......
-
In re Interest of M.D.H.
...the opposite way, concluding that a violation of § 15–11–121 (b) requires dismissal with prejudice. See In the Interest of D.V.H., 335 Ga.App. 299, 299, 779 S.E.2d 122 (2015). We granted certiorari in both cases, asking whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied OCGA § 15–11–521 (b). Th......
-
In re Interest of J.F.
...deciding three days later that the consequence is dismissal with prejudice, see In the Interest of D.V.H. , 335 Ga.App. 299, 300-301, 779 S.E.2d 122 (2015) ; see also id. at 301, 779 S.E.2d 122 (denying the State's motion for reconsideration based on M.D.H. ). The facts pertinent to resolvi......
-
In re Interest of D. V. H., A15A1092
...Gray, Joseph Mark McKinnon, for Appellant.Bethany Anne Begnaud, for Appellee. McFadden, Presiding Judge.In In the Interest of D. V. H. , 335 Ga.App. 299, 779 S.E.2d 122 (2015), we affirmed the juvenile court's dismissal of two delinquency petitions brought by the state against D. V. H. In I......