In THE INTEREST OF R. J. A., a Child ( 2023 )

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
Case No. S23C0133
July 5, 2023
The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.
The following order was passed:
IN THE INTEREST OF R. J. A., a child.
The Supreme Court today denied the petition for certiorari in
this case.
All the Justices concur.
Court of Appeals Case No. A22A1062
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta
I certify that the above is a true extract from the
minutes of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto
affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk
PINSON, J., concurring in the denial of certiorari.
I agree that we should not grant review of the Court of Appeals’
decision in this case. I write separately to flag a narrow issue having
to do with how to understand and apply the holdings of an appellate
court, which may warrant review in an appropriate case.
The question presented in this case is whether a superior court
or a juvenile court had jurisdiction over the underlying prosecution
against R. J. A., a juvenile. A juvenile charged with a crime within
the jurisdiction of the superior court “who is detained” is entitled to
have the charge presented to the grand jury “within 180 days of the
date of detention.” OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (a). If the charge hasn’t been
presented after 180 days of detention, the case must be transferred
to juvenile court. Id. at § 17-7-50.1 (b). In this case, R. J. A. was
arrested and detained on March 1, 2019, then released on bond just
over a month later, but on the special conditions that he wear an
ankle monitor that reported his location, and that he remain at
home except to attend school, work, necessary legal and medical
appointments, and one religious service per week. He was then
2
indicted on October 23, 2019, more than 180 days after he was
arrested and initially detained. So which court has jurisdiction turns
on whether R. J. A. was “detained” during his period of monitored
home confinement. If so, the juvenile court should have exercised
jurisdiction. If not, jurisdiction rested with the superior court.
In addressing this jurisdictional question, the Court of Appeals
properly looked to our decision in State v. Coleman, 306 Ga. 529 (832
SE2d 389) (2019). In Coleman, the juvenile defendant was likewise
arrested and detained, and then released on bond just over a month
later. Almost two years later, he was indicted, and the defendant
moved to transfer his case to juvenile court under the same statute
at issue here, OCGA § 17-7-50.1. The superior court granted the
motion, but we reversed. We explained that this statute did not
require transfer to juvenile court unless the defendant was detained
for the 180-day period, and “if a child is released on bond or
otherwise, they are no longer ‘detained’ within the meaning of the
statute.” Coleman, 306 Ga. at 531. Applying Coleman, the Court of
Appeals held that, “because R. J. A. was released and remained on
3
bond prior to the running of 180 days, he was not detained within
the meaning of OCGA § 17-7-50.1.” Interest of R. J. A., 365 Ga. App.
118, 123 (3) (b) (877 SE2d 673) (2022). So, the court held, “the case
did not run afoul of the time limitation set by that Code section,” and
“the superior court continued to have exclusive jurisdiction over the
case.” Id.So far, so good. But along the way to this decision—which, by
itself, seems to me a faithful and reasonable application of
Coleman—the Court of Appeals took an extra step that gives me
pause. In explaining why “Coleman forecloses R. J. A.’s argument,”
the court noted, “Although that decision does not speak directly to
the question that the Supreme Court left open in Johnson, the
archival records of Coleman reveal that, like R. J. A., the defendant
in that case was released from bond with conditions including home
confinement.” Id. at 122 (3) (b) (emphasis added). In other words, to
confirm the apparent breadth of Coleman’s holding, the court looked
beyond the opinion itself to the record of the case. In explaining this
step, the court noted that both the Court of Appeals and our Court
4
“occasionally look to archived records to distinguish authority.” See
id. at 122 (3) (b) n.1 (citing in support Prophecy Corp. v. Charles
Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (343 SE2d 680) (1986) and Little
Ocmulgee Elec. Membership Corp. v. Lockhart, 212 Ga. App. 282(441 SE2d 796) (1994)).
The Court of Appeals was not wrong about that: our courts
have sometimes looked to a case’s archival records to help determine
the scope of a holding in past decisions. See also Ware v. State, 305
Ga. 457, 460 (2) (826 SE2d 56) (2019). But I have real doubts about
whether that practice is appropriate. Roughly speaking, a holding in
an appellate opinion is a determination on a matter of law that is
necessary to the decision in question. See Bryan A. Garner, et al.,
The Law of Judicial Precedent 44 (2016) (“A holding consists of the
‘court’s determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision.’”
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 849 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 10th ed.
2014))). It is not always easy to figure out what parts of an appellate
decision make up its holding. Questions about whether particular
facts or reasoning are important or necessary to a decision, or just
5
how necessary something must be to count as part of the holding,
can be difficult to answer. See, e.g., Mercer Univ. v. Stofer, 306 Ga.
191, 191-192, 200-201 (4) (830 SE2d 169) (2019) (explaining that the
Court of Appeals was “led astray” by an “acute problem from our
case law” arising out of language in Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic
Games, Inc. v. Hawthorne, 278 Ga. 116 (598 SE2d 471) (2004), that
was not necessary to the holding in that case). See also Charles W.
Tyler, “The Adjudicative Model of Precedent,” 87 U. Chi. L.R. 1551,
1552-1553 (Sept. 2020) (noting that it is “highly contestable” what it
means for a statement of law to be “necessary for the outcome” of a
case). But it seems reasonably clear to me that the universe of things
that are potentially necessary to an appellate court’s decision—and
thus make up its holding—is contained within that court’s opinion.
If a court does not see fit to mention any particular fact in its
opinion, and otherwise provides reasoning for its decision, it seems
self-evident that the missing fact is not necessary to the decision,
and thus not part of the court’s holding. See Garner, supra at 81
(noting that when an opinion does not lay out all the facts that went
6
into the decision, “the full facts”—that is, those not in the opinion—
“aren’t likely to be much help when the court hasn’t left any evidence
that the missing facts played a role in its decision”). In fact, other
decisions of the Court of Appeals are in accord with this
understanding. See MOM Corp. v. Chattahoochee Bank, 203 Ga.
App. 847, 847-848 (2) (418 SE2d 74) (1992) (“The decisions of our
appellate courts must speak for themselves, and the archival records
are not available to litigants in other cases to raise questions about
facts or issues not stated or decided in them.”); Chan v. W-East
Trading Corp., 199 Ga. App. 76, 77 (3) (403 SE2d 840) (1991) (“[I]t
is the facts contained within an officially reported case which have
legal significance when applying the case as precedent, not bare
assertions of facts found within the briefs of the parties and not
contained in the text of the reported case.”).
This conclusion makes practical sense, too. Appellate courts
issue opinions that explain our decisions because those decisions are
binding, and courts, litigants, and the public need to know the legal
rules that bind them. It would be both strange and unfortunate if
7
the public had to review not only our opinions, but also the archival
records of our cases, to know what the law is.
In short, I doubt it is necessary or proper for a court to review
the archival record of a case to determine whether the holding of an
appellate decision in that case controls a legal question currently
before the court. I do not think answering that question would make
a difference in this case in light of Coleman’s clear holding, so I agree
with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. But we might consider
addressing the question in an appropriate case if it arises again.
I am authorized to state that Justice Warren joins in this
concurral.
8