In Re Tt, 510 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Tt, 510 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events (57 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In THE INTEREST OF T.B., a Child (ga, 2022-06-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In THE INTEREST OF T.B., a Child (2×)
Ga. · 2022 · confidence medium
See In the Interest of O.L., 326 Ga. App. 640, 644 (757 SE2d 236) (2014); In the Interest of J.W., 306 Ga. App. 339, 340 (1) (702 SE2d 649) (2010); In the Interest of D.M., 307 Ga. App. 318, 319 (704 SE2d 479) (2010); In the Interest of M.W., 296 Ga. App. 10, 15 (2) (673 SE2d 554) (2009); In the Interest of A.D., 295 Ga. App. 750, 751-752 (673 SE2d 116) (2009); In the Interest of J.W.B., 296 Ga. App. 131, 132-133 (1) (673 SE2d 630) (2009); In the Interest of E.J., 283 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1) (642 SE2d 179) (2007); In the Interest of Q.M.L., 257 Ga. App. 22, 22 (570 SE2d 92) (2002); In the Intere…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of A. D.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
T., supra, 236 Ga. App. at 46 (1).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Ad
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
(Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of T.T. [1] See generally Jackson v. Virginia. [2] Thus, "[t]he standard of review on appeal in a case of adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile is the same as that for any criminal case." In the Interest of T.T., supra, 236 Ga.App. at 46(1), 510 S.E.2d 901 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Mvh (4×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
"In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency, we construe the evidence and every inference from the evidence in favor of the juvenile court's adjudication to determine if a reasonable finder of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile committed the acts charged." (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of T.T. [3] See generally Jackson v. Virginia. [4] "The standard of review on appeal in a case of adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile is the same as that for any criminal case." In the Interest of T.T., s…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of M. V. H. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
T, supra, 236 Ga. App. at 46 (1).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Interest of T.T., a child.
A98A2396.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jan 15, 1999.
510 S.E.2d 901
McMurray.
Published

Sharon S. Whitwell, Locust Grove, for appellant.

Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, Sandra A. Graves, Mary Evans-Battle, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

T.T. was adjudicated delinquent after the juvenile court found he committed an act which, had he been an adult, would have supported a conviction for aggravated assault, a designated felony. OCGA §§ 16-5-21; 15-11-37(a)(2)(B)(ii). The juvenile court ordered that T.T. be confined in a Youth Detention Center for 48 months. On appeal, T.T. asserts there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of delinquency and that the trial court erred when it ordered him confined to restrictive custody for 48 months.

1. "In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency, we construe the evidence and every inference from the evidence in favor of the juvenile court's adjudication to determine if a reasonable finder of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the [juvenile] committed the acts charged. In the Interest of J.T.M., 200 Ga. App. 636, 637, 409 S.E.2d 256 (1991); see generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)." In the Interest of R.L.W., 225 Ga.App. 253, 254(2), 483 S.E.2d 361 (1997). The standard of review on appeal in a case of adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile is the same as that for any criminal case. In the Interest of M.J.F., 191 Ga.App. 792(1), 383 S.E.2d 173.

The record in this case shows that T.T. fought with Kenny Mann after a group of young men, including Mann, laughed at his dog. Mann testified that the fight began after T.T. stood up and asked Mann "[W]hat are you laughing at?" Mann stood up and responded, "Man, I can laugh whenever I want to laugh, I'm grown. You can't stop somebody from laughing." After they both took steps toward one another, Mann told T.T. to get out of his face three times. According to Mann, T.T. then stabbed him with a knife several times before he knew what was happening. After seeing his own blood, Mann "slammed" T.T. several times until the fight was broken up. We find this evidence sufficient to authorize the juvenile court to adjudicate T.T. delinquent.

2. T.T. asserts the juvenile court erred when it failed to conclude that he acted[*902] in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. Although witnesses testified that Mann started the fight by slamming T.T., this evidence does not demand a finding that T.T. acted solely in self-defense within the meaning of OCGA § 16-3-21(a). "`[T]he credibility of the witnesses is for the judge's determination, where the trial judge hears the case without intervention of a jury.' [Cit.]" In the Interest of J.T.M., supra.

3. T.T. contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered him confined in a Youth Development Center for 48 months because "there was no finding that [he] was in need of restrictive custody." We find no merit in this enumeration. The juvenile court specifically found "the child is in need of restrictive custody" in its Order of Commitment. The juvenile court also made all of the factual findings required by OCGA § 15-11-37(b).

Judgment affirmed.

BLACKBURN and ELDRIDGE, JJ., concur.