On October 1,2010, when appellee Joshua Johnson was 15 years old, he was arrested
In November 2011, Johnson filed a motion asking the superior court to transfer his case to the juvenile court pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-50.1, which says in relevant part:
(a) Any child who is charged with a crime that is within the jurisdiction of the superior court, as provided in Code Section 15-11-28 or 15-11-30.2, who is detained shall within 180 days of the date of detention be entitled to have the charge against him or her presented to the grand jury. . . .
(b) If the grand jury does not return a true bill against the detained child within the time limitations set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section, the detained child’s case shall be transferred to the juvenile court and shall proceed thereafter as provided in Chapter 11 of Title 15.
Johnson claimed that both his time in the youth detention center and on bond under the home confinement and electronic monitoring program constituted “detention” within the meaning of OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (a). And because he was not indicted within 180 days of being so detained, Johnson argued, he was entitled to have his indictment dismissed and his case transferred to the juvenile court under OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b). On June 28, 2012, the trial court issued an order denying Johnson’s motion to dismiss the indictment but granting his motion to transfer the case to the juvenile court, ruling that the home confinement and electronic-monitoring program qualified as detention under OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (a).
The State then filed this direct appeal. At the Court’s request, the parties briefed the question of whether the State was authorized to appeal the trial court’s transfer order. We now hold that the State cannot appeal a transfer order entered under OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b), and we therefore must dismiss this appeal.
“The State does not have the right to appeal decisions in criminal cases unless there is a specific statutory provision granting the right.” State v. Caffee,
To begin with, OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b) does not speak of “setting aside,” “dismissing,” or taking any other action regarding an indictment returned against a juvenile. Instead, the provision directs that the juvenile’s entire “case” be “transferred” to juvenile court if the 180-day charging deadline is not met. Thus, the trial court here, in accordance with the statutory text, transferred Johnson’s case to the juvenile court but declined to dismiss the indictment.
Even more telling is the statutory scheme. In 1994, the General Assembly gave the superior courts original jurisdiction, exclusive of the juvenile courts, over seven serious felonies committed by juveniles ages 13 to 17. See Ga. Laws 1994, pp. 1012, 1034; then OCGA § 15-11-5 (b) (2) (A); now OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (A). However, if such an offense was not punishable by the death penalty or life imprisonment, the superior court was given discretion to transfer the case to the juvenile c'ourt after indictment and “after investigation and for extraordinary cause.” Ga. Laws 1994atp. 1034;thenOCGA § 15-11-5 (b) (2) (B); now OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (B).
“ ‘The General Assembly is presumed to enact all statutes with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it.’ ” Fair v. State,
Whether entered under OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (B) or OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b), a transfer order has the same effect: it transfers the juvenile’s entire case from the superior court to the juvenile court. There is no reason to believe that a transfer order entered under OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (B) is not an order dismissing an indictment but a transfer order entered under OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b) is. If we were to construe OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (l)’s “setting aside or dismissing [an] indictment” language to include orders transferring cases to the juvenile court, OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (6) would be surplusage, and “we normally avoid construing statutes to leave parts of them meaningless.” Walker v. State,
OCGA §§ 15-11-28 (b) (2) (B) and 5-7-1 (a) (6) demonstrate the General Assembly knows how to make transfer orders appealable by the State, yet despite referencing OCGA § 15-11-28 in OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (a), the legislature did not similarly authorize the State to appeal transfer orders entered under OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b). The General Assembly may, if it wishes, amend OCGA § 5-7-1 to authorize the State to appeal such transfer orders in the future. See, e.g., OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (8) (added to OCGA § 5-7-1 in 2005 to authorize the State to appeal an order denying the State’s motion to recuse a trial judge, overruling cases holding to the contrary, see, e.g., Ritter v. State,
Having determined that the State was not authorized to bring this appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider its merits and therefore express no opinion as to the trial court’s transfer order.
Appeal dismissed.
Notes
By contrast, a juvenile defendant may appeal an OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (b) order under some circumstances. See, e.g., In the Interest of C. B.,
Because Johnson was charged with murder, which carries a life sentence, see OCGA § 16-5-1 (d), his case was not eligible for transfer under OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (B).