Court Opinion

ID: 9771843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:55:26.177395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:37.976887
License: Public Domain

FONES, Justice,
concurring.
I do not agree with some of the statements in the majority opinion addressing the issue of a non-lawyer juvenile court judge.
First, I have grave reservations that the bare allegation that the juvenile court proceeding was presided over by a non-lawyer judge deprived the juvenile defendants of rights under the “law of the land” clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Tennessee is a sufficient predicate to invoke the writ of habeas corpus.
Second, on the question of the effect of failure to raise the issue of the judge’s status when the case was before the juvenile court, I would hold that waiver did not result solely because the juveniles did not have assistance of counsel at that time.
Otherwise, I concur in the majority opinion.