In the Interest of C. F.
In the Interest of C. F.
Opinion of the Court
The Juvenile Court of Upson County adjudicated C. F. delinquent and subsequently dismissed his appeal, finding he unreasonably delayed the filing of the trial transcript. C. F. appeals the dismissal order, and for reasons that follow, we affirm.
The record shows that, on February 23, 2001, C. F. timely filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court’s order adjudicating him delinquent. The delinquency proceedings were tape recorded, and C. F. wanted to include a transcript of the tape in the record for appeal. On April 30, 2001, the State moved to dismiss C. F.’s appeal, arguing, among other things, that he had inexcusably delayed filing a transcript. The trial court scheduled the motion for hearing on May
On June 2, 2001, the juvenile court denied C. F.’s motion for an extension and granted the State’s motion to dismiss. The court found that, as of the hearing date, 75 days had elapsed since C. F. filed the notice of appeal, and he had still not filed the transcript. The court gave little credence to C. F.’s assertion that the delay was outside his control, finding that he showed only that he received a copy of the tape on April 12, 2001, “submitted [it] ... to persons unknown for transcription” and offered “nothing further of substance ... to show that the appeal is in the process of proceeding.” C. F. subsequently filed this appeal.
1. C. F. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal because there was no evidence showing that his failure to file the transcript was unreasonable and inexcusable. We disagree.
C. F.’s obligation to file the transcript is governed in part by OCGA § 5-6-42, which requires an appellant who wants to include a transcript in the appellate record to cause the transcript to be prepared and filed “within 30 days after filing of the notice of appeal [,]
. . . unless the time is extended as provided in Code Section 5-6-39.” That section permits a court to grant additional time for filing the transcript,
The trial court did not abuse its discretion here. C. F. was
2. C. F. also asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his appeal based, in part, on his failure to pay costs. Assuming without deciding that this assertion has any merit, the court obviously dismissed the appeal due to C. F.’s failure to file the transcript, as it was authorized to do, and “[a] judgment right for any reason will be affirmed on appeal.”
Judgment affirmed.
See OCGA § 5-6-39 (a) (3).
OCGA § 5-6-39 (d).
Burns v. Howard, 239 Ga. App. 315, 316 (520 SE2d 491) (1999).
OCGA § 5-6-48 (c). Accord Burns, supra; Harmed v. Hall, 234 Ga. App. 890, 891-892 (1) (508 SE2d 680) (1998).
See Teston v. Mills, 203 Ga. App. 20 (416 SE2d 133) (1992).
See OCGA § 5-6-42.
See Harmed, supra (72-day delay unreasonable); Dept. of Human Resources v. Patillo, 196 Ga. App. 778, 779 (397 SE2d 47) (1990) (finding that “appellant made no effort to discover when the transcript would be timely filed”).
In re G. W. H, 168 Ga. App. 845, 846 (310 SE2d 573) (1983).
See Harmed, supra; Patillo, supra.
Corner v. State, 223 Ga. App. 353, 355 (477 SE2d 593) (1996).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In the Interest of C. F., a child
- Cited By
- 11 cases
- Status
- Published