Accomplishments that have helped bring change to citizens and the legal community. 

 

2015 - Challenges the Constitutionality of five (5) Georgia criminal statutes.

 Citizens Arrest and Warrants

216 S07G1208  (Lawyers Right to Effectively Advocate for Client)

A06A2253 (Lawyers Right to Advocate for Client) Court of Appeals (GA)

In re X X. A06A0237 (Impact of Extended Probation and Restitution)

Habeas Corpus against the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
for illegal detention of several children and violation of right to counsel and due process: 06-V-0378 Ware County, Georgia


X.X., a Child  635 S.E.2d 176 (2006) 280 Ga. App. 781 No. A06A0237. Restitution and Peonage

X.X. appeals a juvenile court order extending his probation, arguing that the extension impermissibly imposed upon him the condition that he pay restitution. Because the order does not contain requisite findings pertaining to factors set forth in OCGA § 17-14-10, such as the offender's financial condition, the order must be vacated to the extent that it imposes restitution. The case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

 

Although these decisions below were AFFIRMED by the Court of Appeals, each decision opened the door for the General Assembly/State Legislators to enact legislation to provide Equal Protection to Juveniles. The Court of Appeals clearly notes the discrepancies in the laws for juveniles versus the laws for Adults.  Toward that end, these cases offer a guide for change in law and the lives of juveniles.

 

283 Ga. App. 648. In the Interest of  X X., a child (Juvenile Right to have Evidence/Discovery)
OCGA § 15-11-75 (a) (7) provides:  In all cases in which a child is charged with having committed a delinquent act as defined in Code Section 15-11-2, the child shall, upon written request to the person or entity prosecuting the case having actual custody, control, or possession of the material to be produced, have full access to [photographs and any physical evidence which are intended to be introduced at the hearing] for inspection, copying, or photographing. (Emphasis supplied.)   
Since the state did not have actual possession of the videotape and further because it did not intend to introduce the videotape into evidence at trial, it was not under any obligation to produce the videotape pursuant to X.X. discovery request.[2] Compare OCGA §§ 17-16-1 (1) and 17-16-4 (a) (3), requiring the state to produce in criminal prosecutions certain items which are "within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecuting attorney or any law enforcement agency involved in the investigation of the case being prosecuted."

 

280 Ga. App. 143 (2006). IN THE INTEREST OF X X, a Child. (Credit for Time Served)
 Finally, the law provides that X.X.. will be given credit for any time spent in detention following his adjudication but prior to his being admitted into the boot camp program.   OCGA § 15-11-66 (b) (1). The law does not require the juvenile court or the Department, however, to give X.X. credit for time spent in detention prior to his adjudication.(fn2) Therefore, we find no error in the court's dispositional orders.    FN2. Adult offenders are given credit for time served in jail awaiting trial pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-10 (b). Spann v. Whitworth, 262 Ga. 21, 22-23 (1) (413 SE2d 713) (1992). There is no corresponding provision in the law pertaining to delinquent and unruly children. See OCGA § 15-11-62 et seq.