People In Interest of G. A. T., In re
| Decision Date | 23 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 26029,26029 |
| Citation | 515 P.2d 104,183 Colo. 111 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of G.A.T., minor child, Appellant, and concerning L. M., Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., Brooke Wunnicke, Chief App. Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for petitioner-appellee.
Bruce Myr Flossic, Denver, for appellant.
This appeal was transferred to this court on the recommendation of the Court of Appeals because the appellant, G.A.T., presented arguments which challenged the constitutionality of 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--1--4(4) (), and 22--3--8 (transfer hearing), and C.R.J.R. 25. The appellant also contends on appeal that numerous errors occurred in the course of the transfer hearing which require us to reverse the decision of the juvenile court. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the juvenile court transfer order.
Evidence was presented to the juvenile court to show that G.A.T., who was sixteen years old, entered into a conspiracy with a companion, who was about the same age, and in pursuance of the conspiracy did rape, rob, and commit deviate sexual intercourse on a fifteen-year-old girl. The prosecution claimed that before the girl was released by G.A.T., she was beaten, stabbed three times with an ice pick, raped, robbed, and forced to submit to cunnilingus or deviate sexual intercourse. All of the crimes which G.A.T. allegedly committed are felonies. 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S1963, 40--3--401 (rape), 40--3--403 (deviate sexual intercourse), 40--4--302 (aggravated robbery), and 40--2--201 (conspiracy).
The day after this fifteen-year-old girl was assaulted and otherwise mistreated, G.A.T. learned that the authorities were searching for him, and he surrendered to the police. The police officer who arrested G.A.T. testified that shortly after G.A.T. turned himself in and was advised of his rights, he voluntarily admitted that he not only raped the girl and performed cunnilingus on her but also that he joined with his companion in assaulting her with an ice pick and an axe.
A petition in delinquency was thereafter filed in the Denver juvenile court. 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--3--1. A plea hearing was held on April 10, 1973, where counsel was appointed to represent G.A.T. Subsequently, the district attorney requested that a transfer hearing be held, pursuant to 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--1--4(4). The district attorney alleged that the juvenile court should waive jurisdiction so that G.A.T. could be tried in the district court as an adult for the violent crimes which were committed.
Thereafter, a transfer hearing was held on April 23 and 24, 1973, pursuant to C.R.J.P. 25, and extensive evidence was presented. G.A.T. appeared with his mother and with his appointed counsel at the time scheduled for the hearing, and G.A.T.'s counsel presented evidence in opposition to the transfer. Seven witnesses were called and examined by the district attorney, defense counsel, and by the court.
At the conclusion of the transfer hearing, the court made findings of fact, based upon the evidence presented, regarding each of the seven factors set forth in C.R.J.P. 25(c) and properly considered the seven factors individually and also weighed the interrelationship of each factor to the others. The juvenile judge then waived jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Following the entry of the transfer order, a petition for rehearing was filed and denied, and G.A.T., through his counsel, filed this appeal.
It is undisputed that G.A.T.'s mother was not served with a summons and petition until after the first day's hearing was completed, although counsel obtained a copy of the summons and petition shortly after he was appointed. Counsel, therefore, argues that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction and did not obtain jurisdiction until the second day of the hearing.
The applicable sections of our statutes and C.R.J.P. 14 are not in conflict and provide:
'(2) No summons shall issue to any respondent who appears voluntarily, or who waives service, or who has promised in writing to appear at the hearing as provided in sections 22--2--2 or 22--2--3, but any such person shall be provided with a copy of the petition and summons upon appearance or request.' (Emphasis added.) 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--3--3 C.R.J.P. 14. Summons--Service.
'(b) Service need not be made on any respondent who appears voluntarily, or who waives service, or who has promised in writing to appear at the hearing, but any such person shall be provided with a copy of the petition and summons upon appearance or request.' (Emphasis added.)
See also 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--1--7, for the interrelationship of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Colorado Rules of Juvenile Procedure, and the statutory provisions relating to juveniles.
The record is clear that G.A.T.'s mother appeared voluntarily at the transfer hearing, along with G.A.T. and his court-appointed counsel, and participated actively in the hearing on both April 23 and April 24, 1973. It is also clear that G.A.T.'s counsel made no objection to the failure to serve G.A.T.'s mother until long after the hearing had begun. Moreover, no claim is made that the failure to effect service prejudiced the rights of either G....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- D. H. v. People, C--1001
-
People v. Armand, 91CA1426
... ... See § 19-3-108(2)(b)(I), (II), (III), (V), and (VII), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Hence, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion. See § 19-3-108(2)(c), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B); People in Interest of G.A.T., 183 Colo. 111, 515 P.2d 104 (1973) ... Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine and in ruling that if he were to testify in his own defense, his prior juvenile adjudication could be used to impeach him. We agree ... ...
- People v. District Court, Juvenile Division, of Fifth Judicial Dist., 27101
-
ARTICLE 2 THE COLORADO JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
...1991). Evidence presented at transfer hearing sufficient to justify waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction. People in Interest of G.A.T., 183 Colo. 111, 515 P.2d 104 (1973). A transfer order from juvenile to district court is not a final judgment from which appeal lies. D.H. v. People, 192 C......
-
Rule 52 FINDINGS BY THE COURT.
...to C.R.C.P. 41(b). City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust, 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo. App. 1992). Applied in People in Interest of G.A.T., 183 Colo. 111, 515 P.2d 104 (1973); Deas v. Cronin, 190 Colo. 177, 544 P.2d 991 (1976); Poor v. District Court, 190 Colo. 433, 549 P.2d 756 (1976); People in I......
-
ARTICLE 3 DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT
...mother and her participation in the transfer hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to personal service. People in Interest of G.A.T., 183 Colo. 111, 515 P.2d 104 (1973). Parent's constitutional rights of due process were not violated where she was given adequate notice that the juvenile......
-
ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
...transfer hearing, will not be set aside unless the findings upon which the waiver was based were erroneous. People in Interest of G.A.T., 183 Colo. 111, 515 P.2d 104 (1973). Jurisdiction to order placement of juvenile in private facilities. Courts have the jurisdiction to enter custodial or......