Case Name: RELYEA v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1976-02-02
Citations: 236 Ga. 299
Docket Number: 30512
Parties: RELYEA v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Ingram, J., who concurs specially.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 299–301

Head Matter:
30512.
RELYEA v. THE STATE.

Opinion:
Hall, Justice.
This appeal by a juvenile convicted of a capital offense is completely controlled by Brown v. State, 235 Ga. 353 (219 SE2d 419). Under the construction of Code Ann. § 24A-301 (b) given by Brown, the superior court and the juvenile court have concurrent jurisdiction over juveniles charged with capital offenses, and whichever court first takes jurisdiction over the matter in question may retain it, subject to the right of the juvenile court to transfer the case to the superior court under Code Ann. § 24A-2501. Like Brown, Relyea was first indicted by the grand jury for the six armed robberies and the motor vehicle theft here in question, and the superior court thereby took jurisdiction over him.
Submitted November 14, 1975
Decided February 2, 1976
Rehearing denied February 17, 1976.
James W. Studdard, for appellant.
William H. Ison, District Attorney, Douglas N. Peters, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Kirby G. Atkinson, Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Relyea asserts in his brief and elsewhere that the juvenile court first took jurisdiction and that he should prevail on this appeal because Code Ann. § 24A-2501 was not followed in a subsequent "transfer" to the superior court. This claim is without merit. The same claim was pressed before the Clayton County Superior Court on March 14, 1975, on Relyea's motion to determine jurisdiction. The only evidence introduced by Relyea in support of his claim that the juvenile court had previously taken jurisdiction over these offenses was a copy of a juvenile court petition relating to a different offense of motor vehicle theft. Therefore, his claim of juvenile court jurisdiction of the offenses for which he was indicted is totally without support in the record.
The single enumeration of error is therefore without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Ingram, J., who concurs specially.