Lane v. Jones, 257 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. 1979). · Go Syfert
Lane v. Jones, 257 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In the Interest Of: F. A. G. R., a Child (gactapp, 2014-07-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest Of: F. A. G. R., a Child
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Thus, the court correctly noted that any temporary custody order would have an effective duration of only two or three weeks “at best.”7 Citing all of these circumstances, the 5 (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17, 19 (3) ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979). 6 Id. 7 See OCGA § 15-11-2 (2) (C) (2013) (defining “child” in the deprivation context to be any individual under the age of 18 years).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of F. A. G. R.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(Emphasis supplied.) (Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17, 19 (3) ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of V. D. S.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
The endorsement requirement provides the juvenile court with “discretion as to the filing of petitions in that court,” and is consistent with the “basic philosophy that [juvenile] matters shall be handled informally, if at all possible.” (Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17, 19 ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of R. T.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Further, “[t]reatment as a juvenile is not an inherent right, but one granted by the General Assembly; therefore, the General Assembly may restrict or qualify that right as it sees fit.” Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17, 19 (3) ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of W. J. K.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
S., 246 Ga. 617, 618 (1) ( 272 SE2d 294 ) (1980); Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17, 19 (1) ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979); Parham v. Baldwin County &c.
examined Cited "see" Bishop v. State (4×)
Ga. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17 , 18 (3) ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979); Woodard v. Wainwright, 556 F2d 781, 785-786 (5th Cir. 1977); State v. Cain, 381 S2d 1361, 1365-1366 (Fla. 1980); Vega v. Bell, 419 NYS2d 454, 459 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" In re J. B. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17 ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979); Longshore v. State, 239 Ga. 437 ( 238 SE2d 22 ) (1977); Hartley v. Clack, 239 Ga. 113 ( 236 SE2d 63 ) (1977); Williams v. State, 238 Ga. 298, 303 (2) ( 232 SE2d 535 ) (1977); Relyea v. State, 236 Ga. 299 ( 223 SE2d 638 ) (1976).
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest of D. H. C. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17, 19 ( 257 SE2d 525 ) (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State in Interest of AL (2×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Lane v. Jones, 244 Ga. 17 , 257 S.E. 2d 525, 526-27 (1979) (statute allowing the transfer of juvenile to adult court without a hearing is constitutional; treatment as a juvenile is not an inherent right, but one granted by the legislature, which may restrict or qualify that right in any rational way it so chooses); cf., Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 428 , 94 S.Ct. 700, 707 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 618, 647 (1974) (applying rational basis test and upholding classification scheme of Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 which excluded addicts with two or more felony convictions f…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lane
v.
Jones
34922.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jul 2, 1979.
257 S.E.2d 525
Henry Ross, for appellant., Glenn Thomas, Jr., District Attorney, Amanda Williams, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Marshall, Jordan.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Marshall, Justice.

This is a pre-trial habeas corpus appeal. The 15-year-old appellant was arrested on a warrant for murder and held in the juvenile section of Glynn County Detention Center, pursuant to a post-arrest order for[*18] detention issued by the Juvenile Court of Glynn County. The appellant’s attorney, the public defender, attempted to present a petition alleging delinquency to the juvenile court, but the court refused to accept or file such petition. The appellant then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Glynn Superior Court. On the day of, but prior to, the hearing on the habeas corpus petition, an indictment against the appellant for murder was returned. The writ of habeas corpus was denied, from which the appellant appeals.

1. The juvenile court did not acquire jurisdiction of the appellant by its post-arrest order for detention; therefore, the mandatory provisions of Code Ann. § 24A-1404 (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 725; 1977, pp. 1237,1242) were not required and the appellant’s detention is legal. Hartley v. Clack, 239 Ga. 113 (236 SE2d 63) (1977); Longshore v. State, 239 Ga. 437 (238 SE2d 22) (1977).

2. Accordingly, jurisdiction was first acquired by the superior court by means of the appellant’s indictment for murder returned on the day of, but prior to the hearing on, the appellant’s pre-trial habeas corpus petition, at which time no petition was pending in juvenile court. Hartley v. Clack, supra.

3. Code Ann. § 24A-1601 (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 726) provides: "A petition alleging delinquency, deprivation or unruliness of a child shall not be filed unless the court or a person authorized by the court has determined and endorsed upon the petition that the filing of the petition is in the best interest of the public and the child.” In the case sub judice, the juvenile court’s refusal to accept or file the petition alleging delinquency of the appellant, tendered prior to the return of the indictment, was on the ground that it was the policy of that court not to accept jurisdiction of capital felony cases.

Code Ann. § 24A-1601 is not unconstitutional, as contended by the appellant, on the ground that it violates due process of law by permitting the juvenile court to allow the case to be transferred to the superior court by merely disallowing the filing of a petition such as would vest jurisdiction in juvenile court, without the benefit of any transfer hearing, as provided in Code Ann. § 24A-2501 (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 736; 1973, pp. 882, 887;[*19] 1978, p. 1758). Treatment as a juvenile is not an inherent right, but one granted by the General Assembly; therefore, the General Assembly may restrict or qualify that right as it sees fit. Woodard v. Wainwright, 556 F2d 781, 785; cert. den. 434 U. S. 1088 (98 SC 1285, 55 LE2d 794) (1978). The official comment in the Annotated Code following this statute is as follows: "Ga. Code Ann., former § 24-2411 provided that after a complaint was filed, a preliminary investigation was to be had, but where a hearing was requested by the complainant or necessary from the facts, a verified petition was to be filed. The new Code section does not permit the filing of a petition unless it is determined by the court or a person authorized by the court that the filing of the petition is in the best interests of the public and the child. This is consistent with the basic philosophy that these matters shall be handled informally, if at all possible.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Submitted May 18, 1979 Decided July 2, 1979. Henry Ross, for appellant. Glenn Thomas, Jr., District Attorney, Amanda Williams, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

We see no deprivation of due process in giving the juvenile court judge discretion as to the filing of petitions in that court. Nor do we perceive any abuse of discretion under the circumstances in this case, involving a capital felony. It should be noted that § 24A-1601 is for the best interests of the public, as well as the child. The jury in superior court can consider the youth of the appellant as a mitigating circumstance.

The denial of the writ of habeas corpus was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Jordan, J., who concurs in the judgment only.