Summary
In Baker, for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, we affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment voiding circuit court convictions of a juvenile because the Commonwealth had failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of former Code §§ 16.1-263 and -264.
Summary of this case from Moore v. CommonwealthOpinion
Record No. 982102.
June 11, 1999.
Present: All the Justices.
A judgment of the Court of Appeals, under a now-superseded version of the Code, declaring the transfer of jurisdiction from a juvenile and domestic relations district court to a circuit court ineffectual and the subsequent convictions void because the juvenile's father was not notified, is affirmed.
Criminal Practice and Procedure — Juvenile and Domestic Relations — Transfer of Jurisdiction to Circuit Court — Statutory Construction — Code § 16.1-263(A) — Notification to Parents of a Juvenile — Retrospective Application
In this case, upon the transfer of jurisdiction from a juvenile and domestic relations district court to a circuit court, the juvenile's mother received notice but the juvenile's biological father was not notified. There was no attempt to give him notice, and the circuit court made no certification on the record that the identity of the father was not reasonably ascertainable. The Court of Appeals declared the transfer of jurisdiction ineffectual and the subsequent convictions void. The Commonwealth appeals.
1. Code § 16.1-263(A), prior to 1999 amendments, provided that after a juvenile petition is filed, the court shall direct summonses "to the parents" of the juvenile.
2. Here, even though the juvenile's mother received notice, the juvenile's biological father was not notified, there was no attempt to give him notice, and the circuit court made no certification on the record that the identity of the father was not reasonably ascertainable.
3. For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Baker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998), that court's judgment is affirmed.
4. The Attorney General's request that the Court apply this judgment prospectively only is declined; retrospective application is mandated by precedent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Affirmed.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on briefs), for appellant.
Clifford Y. Rose (Rose Wall, on brief), for appellee.
In this appeal, the Court reviews a judgment of the Court of Appeals declaring the transfer of jurisdiction from a juvenile and domestic relations district court to a circuit court ineffectual and the subsequent convictions void. Baker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998).
Central to the decision below was the interpretation of Code § 16.1-263(A), which provides, in part, that after a juvenile petition is filed, the court shall direct summonses "to the parents" of the juvenile. Here, even though the juvenile's mother received notice, the juvenile's biological father was not notified, there was no attempt to give him notice, and the circuit court made no certification on the record that the identity of the father was not reasonably ascertainable.
Parenthetically, we note the statute has been amended effective July 1, 1999 to provide for notice to "at least one parent." Acts 1999, ch. 952.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the court's judgment.
Furthermore, we decline the Attorney General's request that we apply this judgment prospectively only; retrospective application is mandated by Gogley v. Peyton, 208 Va. 679, 160 S.E.2d 746 (1968).
Affirmed.