Case Name: Keith Anthony Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1976-03-05
Citations: 216 Va. 666
Docket Number: Record No. 750457
Parties: Keith Anthony Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 666–673

Head Matter:
Richmond
Keith Anthony Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
March 5, 1976.
Record No. 750457.
Present, All the Justices.
William H. Haboush, for plaintiff in error.
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, on brief), for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Carrico, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this criminal appeal, we consider the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the defendant, Keith Anthony Turner, who was 17 years of age at the time he committed the penitentiary offense of which he was convicted. More precisely, the question is whether the written notice requirement of Code § 16.1-176(a) (3), a part of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law (Code § 16.1-139 et seq.), is procedural or jurisdictional.
Section 16.1-176(a) provides that if a child 15 years of age or over is charged with an offense which, if committed by an adult, could be punished by confinement in the penitentiary, the juvenile court may retain jurisdiction or transfer such child to the appropriate court of record. Any such transfer, however, is subject to the condition that, prior to hearing evidence on the merits of the case, the juvenile court shall conduct a hearing on the question whether to retain jurisdiction or to transfer the matter (§ 16.1-176(a) (2)) and in connection with the hearing shall give:
"Notice in writing of the time, place and purpose of the hearing . to the child and his parents, guardian or other persons standing in loco parentis or attorney at least five days before the hearing." Code § 16.1-176(a) (3).
The facts are not in dispute. The defendant was born February 16, 1957. On October 3, 1974, he robbed at gunpoint the proprietor of Paynter's Union 76 Service Station, located in Richmond. On October 5, the defendant was arrested on a warrant at his Richmond home in the presence of his parents. He was thereupon taken into custody.
On October 7, a detention hearing was held by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Richmond. The defendant and his father were present. Notice of the charge of robbery was served on the defendant, bail was fixed, and a transfer hearing was set for October 24. The defendant was remanded to jail, where he remained in default of bail.
Also on October 7, the arresting officer executed a juvenile petition in the form prescribed by Code § 16.1-165. On October 8, counsel was appointed to represent the defendant, and the attorney was "notified of hearing date." The record fails to show, however, that any written notice of the time, place, and purpose of the October 24 hearing was given the defendant, his parents, or his attorney.
At the transfer hearing, the defendant, his parents, and his attorney all were present. Following the hearing and receipt of the report of investigation required by Code § 16.1-176(c), the juvenile court certified the defendant's case to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Division I. The defendant was there indicted, tried without a jury, and convicted of robbery. He was sentenced to a term of 15 years in the penitentiary, with 7 years suspended.
The defendant contends that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try him because notice in writing of the transfer hearing was not given him, his parents, or his attorney. We do not agree, however, that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try the defendant.
Admittedly, the record fails to show that any notice in writing was provided of the time, place, and purpose of the transfer hearing. At the detention hearing, however, the defendant, with his father present, was served with notice of the charge against him, and the date was set for the transfer hearing. Sixteen days prior to the transfer hearing, counsel was appointed for the defendant, and the attorney was "notified of hearing date." At the transfer hearing, the defendant, his parents, and his attorney were present; none voiced any complaint concerning the inadequacy of notice, either at the transfer hearing or later at the trial in circuit court. Furthermore, the defendant has not claimed or shown any prejudice resulting from the lack of written notice.
It is elementary that the purpose of notice in a criminal proceeding is to inform the accused of the charge against him and to afford him reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense. Due process of law requires the same purpose to be served by notice in a juvenile proceeding. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33 (1967). But the form of notice and the method of giving notice are ordinarily considered matters of procedural and not substantive due process. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948).
Unquestionably, the juvenile statutes of Virginia require written notice of a transfer hearing. But if the requirement that the notice be in writing is procedural rather than jurisdictional, any departure from that requirement may be cured or waived by the appearance of proper and necessary parties and a failure to object to inadequacy of notice. We believe the juvenile statutes themselves demonstrate the procedural nature of the written notice requirement.
A proceeding in juvenile court, leading either to exercise of the court's own disciplinary powers or to transfer, is based upon a petition executed pursuant to Code § 16.1-165. Section 16.1-166 provides that notice of the petition shall be given by a summons requiring "all proper or necessary persons to appear . . . unless the parties hereinafter named voluntarily appear." The child, his parents, and his attorney are "parties hereinafter named" in § 16.1-176, the transfer statute which is the focus of our inquiry.
Section 16.1-167 provides that service of the summons required in a juvenile proceeding shall be by delivery of a true copy thereof to the person summoned. The section further provides, however, that if "the child mentioned in the petition is present in court, no summons or other notice to the child shall be necessary to give the court jurisdiction of the child."
Further, Code § 16.1-176, the transfer statute, which includes the pertinent requirement of notice in writing, provides that no child shall be prosecuted in a court of record for a criminal offense unless his case has been transferred as provided in the statute. The following section, 16.1-176.2, however, provides that, at any time prior to the transfer hearing, a child, with the written consent of his counsel, may waive the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and have his case transferred to the appropriate court of record. We deem it significant that § 16.1-176.2 was enacted at the same session of the General Assembly (1973) at which § 16.1-176 was revised and the requirement of notice in writing of a transfer hearing was included. Also significant is the fact that when the General Assembly revised the transfer statute in 1973 and imposed stricter requirements for transfer, it left intact the authority contained in § 16.1-175, under which a court of record, upon discovering that a criminal defendant is under 18 years of age, may transfer the case to the juvenile court or it may, after securing the report of investigation required by the transfer statute, § 16.1-176(c), continue with the trial. See Toran v. Peyton, 207 Va. 923, 925, 153 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1967).
We are of opinion that these various statutory provisions clearly show the legislative intent to make merely procedural the requirement that notice of a transfer hearing be in writing. It would be inconsistent and contradictory to say that the requirement of written notice is jurisdictional when the juvenile statutes dispense with notice to the child if he "is present in court" and with all notice when the proper and necessary parties "voluntarily appear." Any argument in favor of the jurisdictional nature of written notice of a transfer hearing is overcome by the provision that a court of record, notwithstanding absence of a transfer hearing, may proceed to try a person under the age of 18 years upon securing the report required, interestingly enough, by the transfer statute. And especially is the jurisdictional argument negated by the further provision that the transfer hearing itself may be waived.
Failure to give written notice of a transfer hearing is, therefore, a mere procedural defect. We said in Snyder v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 1009, 1014, 121 S.E.2d 452, 456 (1961), relying upon Dowdell v. United States, 221 U.S. 325, 332 (1911), that "objection to a procedural defect must be timely made if it is to avail an accused when attacking his conviction."
In the present case, because the written notice requirement is procedural, all necessary parties were present at the transfer hearing, and the defendant raised no objection of inadequacy of notice either in juvenile court or at his trial in circuit court, we will not now notice the objection. For similar reasons, the cases of Matthews v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 358, 218 S.E.2d 538 (1975), and Peyton v. French, 207 Va. 73, 147 S.E.2d 739 (1966), relied upon by the defendant, are inapplicable here.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.