IN THE INTEREST OF K.S., a Child
303 Ga. 542
| Ga. | 2018Background
- In 2015 the State filed delinquency petitions in Douglas County juvenile court alleging multiple car break-ins by five juveniles, including K.S., and sought transfer to superior court for criminal prosecution.
- Juvenile court held hearings and entered orders transferring the juveniles’ cases to superior court.
- K.S. (and co-defendants) directly appealed the transfer orders to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeals, holding OCGA § 15-11-564 required use of interlocutory appeal procedures in OCGA § 5-6-34(b).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Juvenile Code requires following OCGA § 5-6-34(b) to appeal a juvenile-to-superior-court transfer order.
- The Supreme Court analyzed statutory text, legislative history, and the practical effect of stays, concluding § 15-11-564 gives parties a right to review and makes transfer orders directly appealable.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeals of juvenile-to-superior-court transfer orders must follow OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory-appeal procedures | K.S.: § 15-11-564 gives parties a right to have transfer orders reviewed directly; no permission procedure required | State: Use of the term “interlocutory” in § 15-11-564 invokes § 5-6-34(b), requiring permission from trial and appellate courts before appeal | Held: § 15-11-564 grants a direct right to appeal transfer orders; OCGA § 5-6-34(b) permission procedure does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Peach Trader Inc., 302 Ga. 504 (appeal rights depend on statute)
- Islamkahn v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548 (OCGA § 5-6-34(b) requires permission to appeal interlocutory orders)
- Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838 (statutory text governs interpretation)
- Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (statutory text read in context)
- Tibbles v. Teachers Retirement System of Ga., 297 Ga. 557 (common usage and context inform construction)
- Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (may consider statute structure and related law)
- Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692 (de novo review of statutory construction)
- Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189 (avoid interpretations that render language surplusage)
- J. T. M. v. State, 142 Ga. App. 635 (pre-Juvenile Code practice treating transfer orders as final for direct appeal)
- Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35 (Legislature authorizes direct appeals of certain interlocutory rulings)
- In re Paul, 270 Ga. 680 (examples of direct appeals from interlocutory juvenile matters)