E. S. v. State
Citation | 215 S.E.2d 732,134 Ga.App. 724 |
Decision Date | 08 May 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 50586,50586,3 |
Parties | E.S. v. STATE of Georgia |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Spence, Garrett & Spence, D. William Garrett, Jr., Alpharetta, for appellant.
Anne Workman, Sol., Paul Gemmette, Asst. Sol., Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On January 21, 1974, this eleven-year old juvenile was the subject of a complaint filed with the Juvenile Court of DeKalb County charging him with delinquency in the commission of certain acts of criminal trespass and abusive language. On May 22 a 'replaced and amended' complaint was also filed, the difference being only in the amount of detail furnished on the sheet. E.S. was not detained. Adjudicatory and dispositional hearings were held on July 23, he was adjudge delinquent, and committed to six months probation. A motion for new trial was filed and denied, after which a motion to vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction was also denied and the defendant appeals. Held:
1. Code Ann. § 24A-1701(a) (Ga.L.1974, pp. 1126, 1129) requires: 'In the event said child is not in detention then the court shall fix a time for hearing thereon which shall not be later than 60 days from the date of the filing of said petition.' This was a change in the law, effective March 28, 1974, setting for the first time a maximum number of days within which the case must be called for hearing. The motion to vacate the judgment of delinquency contends that the court was without jursdiction for the reason that, whether the first or second 'amended' complaint be considered, more than 60 days had passed and the juvenile should have been automatically discharged.
By way of comparison, our Code § 27-1901 requires from the criminal adult defendant a demand for trial, and specifies when the demand is not met 'he shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted.' That Code section is indeed jurisdictional. Bishop v. State, 11 Ga.App. 296, 75 S.E. 165. The statutes of other states setting maximum trial delays which we have examined all appear to have attached a sanction requiring the release of the accused when not observed. Cf. People v. Markword, 108 Ill.App.2d 468, 247 N.E.2d 914. In considering the righ to speedy trial in a juvenile case, it was held in State of New Mexico v. Henry, 78 N.M. 573, 434 P.2d 692 that 'In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, clearly indicates the same constitutional standards apply to juveniles as to adults.' The importance of observing these constitutional and statutory guarantees in juvenile cases is clearly pointed out in 'A Balancing Approach to the Grant of Procedural Rights in Juvenile Court.' Northwestern Univ.L.Rev., Vol. 64, pp. 87, 110 et seq.
Nevertheless, where the statute does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R.D.F., In Interest of
...237 Ga. 406, 408, 229 S.E.2d 66 (1976). However, this requirement can be waived, id. at 409, 229 S.E.2d 66; E.S. v. State of Georgia, 134 Ga.App. 724, 725(1), 215 S.E.2d 732 (1975) or continued for the securing of legal representation, OCGA § 15-11-30(b), or for reasons within the discretio......
-
Sanchez v. Walker County Dept. of Family and Children Services
...was filed in the juvenile court. There are four Georgia Appeals decisions interpreting this section. They are: E.S. v. State of Ga., 134 Ga.App. 724, 215 S.E.2d 732 (1975); Brown v. Fulton County Dep't. of Family and Children Services, 136 Ga.App. 308, 220 S.E.2d 790 (1975); Sanchez v. Walk......
-
J. B. H. v. State
...County Department of Family and Children Services, 138 Ga.App. 49, 225 S.E.2d 441. But in the first division of E.S. v. State, of Ga., 134 Ga.App. 724, 215 S.E.2d 732 this court indicated at pages 724 and 725, 215 S.E.2d 732, by comparison with criminal adult defendants, that it was jurisdi......
-
J.B. v. State of Georgia, 68297
...of objection to the continuance already granted, apparently within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. See E.S. v. Ga., 134 Ga.App. 724, 725(1), 215 S.E.2d 732. 3. J.B. argues the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a free copy of the pretrial transcript as an indigent. Howev......