In the Interest of J. H., a child.
A15A2157
Court of Appeals of Georgia
February 26, 2016
783 SE2d 367
BARNES, Presiding Judge.
Dwight L. Thоmas, for appellant. Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Joshua D. Morrison, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
The sole issue in this case involves the juvenile court‘s interpretation of
The State filed a petition seeking an adjudication of delinquency against 15-year-old J. H., alleging that he had committed four offenses that would have constituted crimes if hе had been an adult: burglary, reckless driving, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and criminal gang activity. After the adjudication hearing began on April 28, 2015, J. H. entered admissions to the first three offеnses of burglary, reckless driving, and fleeing or attempting to elude, but denied the charge of gang activity. After advising J. H. of his rights and asking the prosecutor what the evidence would show regarding those charges, the juvenilе court found a factual basis for the admissions and accepted them. The court then instructed the prosecuting attorney to call the first witness on the offense of gang activity.
At that point in the adjudicаtion hearing, the parties and the court held a discussion regarding the fact that the delinquency petition did not indicate that the fourth count was a Designated Felony, which was required under the revised Juvenile Code. The prosecuting attorney orally moved to amend the delinquency petition to state that the offense was being prosecuted under the Designated Felony provisions of Title 15. J. H. objected, аsserting that jeopardy had already attached and that such an amendment was barred by statute.
The trial court granted the prosecutor‘s motion to amend, reasoning that the prosecutor was nоt adding a new charge of delinquency, but was merely amending the petition to correct the pleading defect of having omitted the label of “Designated Felony.” At that point the court continued the hearing on the delinquency petition to give J. H. an opportunity to file a petition for a certificate of immediate review, although it committed J. H. to two years in custody based on a previous pеtition during which J. H. had been adjudicated delinquent based on three counts of terroristic threats.
J. H. argues on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to amend the petition аfter jeopardy had attached.
Under Georgia‘s rules of statutory construction, this court is charged with looking “diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the rеmedy.”
Further, “all statutes relating to the same subject-matter, briefly called statutes ‘in pari materia,’ are construed together, and harmonized wherever possible, so as to ascertain the legislative intendment and give effect thereto.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of H. E. B., 303 Ga. App. 895, 896 (695 SE2d 332) (2010).
The Georgia legislature revised the Juvenile Code effective January 1, 2014.1 Both the previous codе and the current code direct that the delinquency petition “shall set forth plainly and with particularity” certain information, such as the facts that brought the child within the court‘s jurisdiction, the name and address of the child and his parents, guardians, or custodians if known, and details of the child‘s detention, if any.
Whether a juvenile is adjudicated for committing a Designated Felony or simply a delinquent act significantly alters the length оf the commitment available. The maximum length of commitment for a delinquent act is 24 months, with the possibility of a 24-month
Before the enactment of the current Juvenile Code, the Statе was allowed to amend a delinquency petition to add charges at any time before adjudication. The statute was silent on the issue, but the Uniform Rules of Juvenile Court, Rule 6.6 provided: “A petition may be amеnded at any time prior to adjudication, provided that the court shall grant the parties additional time to prepare as may be required to ensure a full and fair hearing.” Further, if the amendment added additional charges, the amended petition had to be served in accordance with former
The revised Juvenile Code includes a completely new provision that addresses the timing of delinquency petition amendments.
(a) A prosecuting attorney may amend a petition alleging delinquency at any time prior to the commencement of the adjudication hearing. However, if an amendment is made, a child may request a continuance of his or her adjudication hearing. A continuance may be granted by the court for such period as required in the interest of justice.
(b) When a petitiоn alleging delinquency is amended to include material changes to the allegations or new charges of delinquency for adjudication, the petition shall be served in accordance with Code Sections 15-11-530 and 15-11-531.2
(c) After jeopardy attaches, a petition alleging delinquency shall not be amended to include new charges of delinquency.
In its written order granting the prosecution‘s motion to amend the delinquency petition in this case, the juvenile court stated that it “interpret[ed]
The State argues that “the sole, express purpose” of
The State‘s amendment to the petition in this case did not add a new charge of delinquency, an action plainly рrohibited by
Subsection (b) of
Construing
Judgment reversed. Ray and McMillian, JJ., concur.