Court Opinion

ID: 9854409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:07:21.912092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:04.330504
License: Public Domain

Benham, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I cannot agree with the majority’s analysis concerning personal versus subject matter jurisdiction, and because I believe the holding of the majority places an inappropriate burden on defendants before the probate courts, I must respectfully dissent.
First, I maintain that the “general class” of cases over which OCGA § 40-13-21 gives certain probate courts subject matter jurisdiction consists of state traffic misdemeanors prosecutions (a) initiated in counties in which there is not a “city, county, or state court,” and (b) in which a waiver of jury trial has been obtained. This is not a matter of allowing pleadings to determine the subject matter of the courts. It is instead a matter of honoring the legislature’s judgment that it is appropriate to limit the probate courts’ jurisdiction to those cases in which the defendant has affirmatively waived a jury trial. *201The statute does not speak of cases in which the defendant has failed to demand a jury trial; it speaks of cases in which the defendant has waived a jury trial.
Decided April 11, 1991 —
Reconsideration denied May 9, 1991.
Virgil L. Brown & Associates, Bentley C. Adams III, Anne Cobb, Eric D. Hearn, for appellant.
Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, Gregory A. Futch, Assistant *202District Attorney, for appellee.
*201If the majority’s reasoning is correct, OCGA § 40-13-23 (b) will have the curious effect of giving municipal courts subject matter jurisdiction over offenses occurring outside the municipal boundaries so long as the defendant waives the issue by failing to point out the location of the offense. Just as the first sentence of that section gives probate courts jurisdiction, “provided the defendant waives a jury trial,” the last sentence gives municipal courts jurisdiction “if the defendant waives a jury trial and the offense arises within the territorial limits of the respective jurisdictions. . . .” If the limitation on the probate courts’ jurisdiction is a matter of personal jurisdiction, so would be the similarly phrased limitation on the municipal courts’ jurisdiction. I do not believe that result was intended by the legislature.
Second, the phrase, “provided the defendant waives a jury trial,” clearly places the burden of obtaining that waiver on the probate court. Under the majority’s reasoning, the burden is on the defendant to affirmatively demand a jury trial; otherwise it is waived. That reasoning would be correct if the phrase read “unless the defendant demands a jury trial,” but that was not what the legislature chose to require. Instead, in clear language which the majority now treats as meaningless, the legislature required the probate court to obtain a waiver of jury trial as a step in obtaining subject matter jurisdiction over a prosecution of a state traffic misdemeanor.
I would hold that the absence of a waiver of jury trial from the record rendered the judgment of the probate court in the present case a nullity, and that the issue of the failure of the probate court to obtain a waiver could be raised on appeal under the principles that a judgment of a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void (OCGA § 17-9-4) and that a void judgment may be attacked in any court. OCGA § 9-11-60 (a). I would, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Convinced as I am that the majority’s affirmance of the Court of Appeals is contrary to the expressed will of the legislature and to sound policy, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Smith and Justice Bell join in this dissent.