In Re Jaf, 586 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Jaf, 586 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In the Interest of C. B. (ga, 2009-11-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of C. B.
Ga. · 2009 · confidence medium
A. F, 262 Ga. App. 722, 723 ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re BQLE
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] See OCGA § 15-11-2(11) ("status offender" means a child who is charged with or adjudicated of an offense which would not be a crime if it were committed by an adult, in other words, an act which is only an offense because of the perpetrator's status as a child, including acts of unruly behavior), 15-11-2(12)(C) ("unruly child" means a child who has committed an offense applicable only to a child). [2] OCGA § 15-11-2(6)(B); In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723-724 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003). [3] While not expressly stating in its order, the juvenile court remarked at the …
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of B. Q. L. E.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
A. E, 262 Ga. App. 722, 723-724 (2) ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re DT
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723-724 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003). [2] In the Interest of J.L., 229 Ga.App. 447, 448 (1), 494 S.E.2d 274 (1997). [3] Fowler v. State, 171 Ga.App. 491, 492 (1), 320 S.E.2d 219 (1984). [4] Dixon v. State, 277 Ga.App. 656, 659 , 627 S.E.2d 406 (2006). [5] In the Interest of C.L., 289 Ga.App. 377, 380 (1)(b), 657 S.E.2d 301 (2008). [6] Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 804-805 (3), n. 5, 505 S.E.2d 731 (1998). [7] White v. State, 266 Ga. 134, 135 (3), 465 S.E.2d 277 (1996). [8] Smith v. State, 269 Ga.App. 133, 140 (3), 603 S.E.2d 445 (2004). [9] G…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Qm
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] The juvenile court also adjudicated Q.M. delinquent for possessing an imitation controlled substance with the intent to distribute and found him not guilty of possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. [2] See In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003). [3] The jury was shown a videotape from a school security camera mounted outside of Courson's classroom that apparently depicted the incident.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of Q. M.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
A. F., 262 Ga. App. 722, 723 (2) ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of C. C.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
A. F., 262 Ga. App. 722, 723-724 (2) ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of P. M. H.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
A. F., 262 Ga. App. 722, 723-724 (2) ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of R. H.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
A. F., 262 Ga. App. 722, 723-724 (2) ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Rh
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723-724 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003). [2] Id. at 724 , 586 S.E.2d 381 . [3] In the Interest of E.G.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of M. M.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
A. F., 262 Ga. App. 722, 723-724 (2) ( 586 SE2d 381 ) (2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Mm
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] See In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723-724 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003). [2] Id. at 724 , 586 S.E.2d 381 . [3] OCGA § 16-7-21(a). [4] See id. [5] Walters testified that he received a $186.20 repair estimate from a bodyshop, but we have previously held such testimony to be inadmissible hearsay.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Cc (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723-724 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Pmh (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of J.A.F., 262 Ga.App. 722, 723-724 (2), 586 S.E.2d 381 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Interest of J.A.F., a child.
A03A1541.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Aug 12, 2003.
586 S.E.2d 381
Johnson.
Published

[*382] Eric A. Ballinger, Waleska, for appellant.

Garry T. Moss, Dist. Atty., Wallace W. Rogers, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.

This appeal from a juvenile court adjudication of delinquency challenges a change made to the petition charging delinquency and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's finding of delinquency. The challenges are without merit, so we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

In January 2000, 13-year-old J.A.F. was adjudicated delinquent for simple assault, and in June of that year he committed a simple battery. In February 2002, the juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent for violating his probation. In an order designated as Case No. 028-01J-1604, the court again placed J.A.F. on probation with various terms and conditions. Among those terms and conditions, the court ordered that J.A.F. attend school regularly and have no unexcused absences from school.

On October 15, 2002, J.A.F.'s probation officer filed a complaint alleging that J.A.F. had violated the school attendance conditions of probation set forth in Case No. 028-01J-1604. Based on that complaint, a formal petition charging J.A.F. with delinquency was filed in the juvenile court. The petition alleged that J.A.F. had violated the terms of his probation because he had been suspended and thus had failed to attend school from September 12, 2002, to October 15, 2002. In setting forth the allegations, the petition incorrectly identified the prior order of probation as Case No. 028-01J-01609, as opposed to the correct number of 028-01J-1604.

J.A.F. denied the probation violation charge and proceeded to a hearing before a juvenile court judge. The first witness called by the state at the hearing was a probation officer. She clarified that J.A.F. was on probation pursuant to the prior case number ending in 1604, not 1609 as inaccurately set forth in the petition. The state then moved to amend the error contained in the petition, and the court granted the motion.

The state next called to the witness stand a social worker for the county school system who investigates student attendance problems and is the custodian of attendance records. He testified that J.A.F. began school on August 13, 2002, and was withdrawn from school a month later, on September 12, 2002, due to excessive absences. The social worker provided the school withdrawal form, which shows that J.A.F. was absent from school on nine days.

The final witness was J.A.F.'s mother. When asked why J.A.F. had not gone to school, she testified that she had no explanation. She said that she enrolled J.A.F. in a night school after his withdrawal for excessive absences, but he also had absences there and got no credit from the night school. She then enrolled him in another high school, but he missed a number of days there, too.

The juvenile court adjudicated J.A.F. delinquent, finding that he had violated his probation by not attending school regularly. J.A.F. appeals.

1. J.A.F. claims that the court erred in failing to continue the proceedings after allowing the state to amend the petition by changing the number of the case for which he was on probation. It is true that where the state amends a delinquency petition to add charges, "the court shall grant the parties such additional time to prepare as may be required to ensure a full and fair hearing."[1] Here, however, the state did not amend the petition to add charges. Rather, it merely corrected an obvious clerical error in the petition. The correction of such a typographical error does not rise to the level of an amendment mandating a continuance.[2][*383] Moreover, because J.A.F. made no showing whatsoever that his ability to defend the charge was prejudiced by the correction to the petition, we find no error.[3]

2. J.A.F. contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the adjudication of delinquency.

In considering the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a juvenile court adjudication of delinquency, we apply the same standard of review that is used in any criminal case. That is, we construe the evidence in favor of the adjudication to determine if a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the acts charged.[4]

Construed in favor of the finding of delinquency, the evidence in the instant case plainly shows that J.A.F. violated his probation by failing to attend school regularly. And in spite of the fact that his repeated absences resulted in his forced withdrawal from school, J.A.F. continued to miss school once he was reenrolled. Because there is sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that J.A.F. violated his probation, the adjudication of delinquency will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

ELDRIDGE and MIKELL, JJ., concur.

1 (Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) In the Interest of D.W., 232 Ga.App. 777, 778(1), 503 S.E.2d 647 (1998).
2 See Anderson v. State, 211 Ga.App. 2, 3(2), 438 S.E.2d 376 (1993).
3 See Melton v. State, 174 Ga.App. 461, 462(2), 330 S.E.2d 398 (1985).
4 (Footnotes omitted.) In the Interest of J.W.L., 242 Ga.App. 749, 531 S.E.2d 169 (2000).