R. A. S. v. State, 60549
Citation | 274 S.E.2d 752,156 Ga.App. 366 |
Decision Date | 07 November 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 60549,60549 |
Parties | R. A. S. v. STATE of Georgia. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Joseph J. Anthony, Franklin, for appellant.
Marc Acree, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
A petition alleging various acts of delinquency by appellant was dismissed on appellant's motion because of a lack of compliance with the requirement in Code Ann. § 24A-1404(c) that an informal detention hearing be held within 72 hours of the detention of a juvenile. However, on that same day the state filed a second petition alleging four acts of delinquency, three of which had been alleged in the first petition. On the authority of Sanchez v. Walker County Dept. of Family etc. Services, 237 Ga. 406, 229 S.E.2d 66, the juvenile court denied appellant's motion to dismiss the second petition. After hearing evidence, the juvenile court concluded that appellant was delinquent. Appellant's sole enumeration of error is that the juvenile court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the second petition. We agree with appellant and reverse the judgment of the lower court.
The basis for appellant's argument, and the reason we reverse, is this court's holding in J. B. H. v. State of Ga., 139 Ga.App. 199, 203, 228 S.E.2d 189: "(W)e hold that time limits established by the General Assembly in the Juvenile Court Code are jurisdictional and must be strictly adhered to.
Although that decision expressly excluded from its scope the provision here involved (the requirement that an informal detention hearing be held within 72 hours of the child's detention), we find the same considerations applicable. It is clear from the record that the juvenile court also recognized that a failure to comply with the time periods set out in the Juvenile Court Code required dismissal. However, the lower court was convinced by the state's argument that Sanchez, supra, applied and permitted the charges against appellant to be brought again. The portion of the holding in that case on which the trial court relied reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R.D.F., In Interest of
...of L.A.E., supra at (1), 447 S.E.2d 627; In the Interest of M.D.C., 214 Ga.App. 59, 447 S.E.2d 143 (1994); R.A.S. v. State of Georgia, 156 Ga.App. 366, 274 S.E.2d 752 (1980); J.B.H. v. State of Ga., 139 Ga.App. 199(1), 228 S.E.2d 189 (1976). 4. Applying the law to the facts in this case, th......
-
L.A.E., In Interest of
...the petition was filed. The only available remedy for one denied his right to a speedy trial is dismissal. R.A.S. v. State of Ga., 156 Ga.App. 366, 367, 274 S.E.2d 752 (1980). The trial court erred in denying L.A.E.'s motion to dismiss the 2. In light of our holding in Division 1, we need n......
-
Harden v. Drost, 60418
... ... See [156 Ga.App. 366] Mulkey v. State, 155 Ga.App. 304, 270 S.E.2d 816 (1980). We conclude that the trial court erred in refusing the admission of this document. See Winkles v. Guenther ... ...
-
P.L.A. v. State, 68948
...to .... [T]he only available remedy for one denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial is dismissal....' " R.A.S. v. State, 156 Ga.App. 366, 367, 274 S.E.2d 752 (1980). It is undisputed that appellant's detention hearing was held on September 30, 1983. A petition alleging delinquent ......