State v. Perry, A03A1020.
Decision Date | 24 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. A03A1020.,A03A1020. |
Citation | 261 Ga. App. 886,583 S.E.2d 909 |
Parties | The STATE v. PERRY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Solicitor-General, Ian R. Heap, Jr., Asst. Solicitor-General, for appellant.
Charles W. Bell, Savannah, for appellee.
This matter arose out of a fight on school grounds. The State filed an accusation in the State Court of Chatham County charging Ronald Perry with affray, OCGA § 16-11-32; disrupting a public school, OCGA § 20-2-1181; and criminal trespass, OCGA § 16-7-21.
At his arraignment on May 22, 2002, Perry received a copy of the accusation and a list of witnesses and requested a bench trial. Before Perry entered a plea, his counsel informed the court that the school system wanted the charges dismissed and presented a letter from an assistant principal at the school where the fight took place. According to Perry's counsel, the school system reasoned that since Perry had no prior criminal record, intended to enter the military, and had participated in a five-hour hearing before the school board dealing with the matter, he should not be punished further. Over the State's objections, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the charges, stating,
The State contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the accusation. According to the State, the reluctance of the school system and the other party to the fight to pursue the charges was not an appropriate grounds for dismissal. For the reasons stated below, we agree and reverse.
"In the district attorney's role as an administrator of justice, he or she has broad discretion in making decisions prior to trial about [whom] to prosecute, what charges to bring, and which sentence to seek." (Footnotes omitted.) State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 531(2), 543 S.E.2d 721 (2001).1 (Citation omitted.) Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406, 407(1), 383 S.E.2d 555 (1989).2
Given the State's interest in criminal prosecution, the State argues that dismissal of the accusation was improper under State v. Colquitt, 147 Ga.App. 627, 249 S.E.2d 680 (1978). In State v. Colquitt, the parties appeared for the sole purpose of hearing the defendant's plea. Id. at 628, 249 S.E.2d 680. Upon being informed that the alleged victim did not want to press charges, however, the trial court ordered the case dead docketed. Id. The trial court said that it was overburdened and did not have time to hear a case involving a reluctant complaining witness, especially when the State was not ready to proceed immediately. Id. This Court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in placing the case on the dead docket because "the power to control the proceeding of the court is subject to the proviso that in so doing a judge does not take away or abridge any right of a party under the law." (Citation omitted.) Id. at 629, 249 S.E.2d 680
In this case, we find the trial court abridged the State's right to prosecute an accused. The record reveals no legal basis for the dismissal.3 The only reason for the arraignment was for Perry to be advised of the charges against him, enter a plea, and have his case set for trial should he plead not guilty. The arraignment was neither a motion hearing nor a trial, and the State was not required to put on witnesses or produce evidence. By dismissing the case over the State's objection, the trial court deprived the State of its right to present its case against Perry, and thus abused its discretion. State v. Colquitt, 147 Ga.App. at 629, 249 S.E.2d 680.
Judgment reversed.
1. See also Grimsley v. State, 233 Ga.App. 781, 782, 505 S.E.2d 522 (1998) () (citation omitted); Shire v. State, 225 Ga. App. 306, 308(1), 483 S.E.2d 694 (1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Csehy v. State
...to the proviso that in so doing a judge does not take away or abridge any right of a party under the law.’ " State v. Perry , 261 Ga. App. 886, 887, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003), quoting State v. Colquitt , 147 Ga. App. 627, 628, 249 S.E.2d 680 (1978). Accordingly, even in the course of controllin......
-
State v. Walker
...the security of its citizens by prosecuting crime. Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II[.] State v. Perry , 261 Ga. App. 886, 887, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003) (citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted). See also OCGA § 17-1-2 ("A ‘penal action’ is an action allowed in pursuanc......
-
State v. Brooks
...it interferes with the State's right to prosecute by dismissing an accusation without a legal basis to do so. State v. Perry, 261 Ga.App. 886, 887-888, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003) (trial court abused discretion in dismissing, sua sponte, charges against defendant arising out of fight on school gr......
-
State v. Miller
...from a school fight as an abuse of discretion when "[t]he record showed no want of prosecution." Id.2 Likewise, in State v. Perry, 261 Ga.App. 886, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003), another school fight case, we held that a trial court abused its discretion in dismissing criminal charges, even when th......