--- title: In the Interest of A. H., a Child collection: opinions id: S22G1035 cite_as: In the Interest of A. H., a Child, 317 Ga. 31 (2023) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22G1035 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22G1035.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22G1035/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680056/in-the-interest-of-a-h-a-child/ date: 2023-08-21 status: published corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14 license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2023.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0595.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0465.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 1869 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22G1035.md?full=1 docket: S22G1035 citation: 317 Ga. 31 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: other authoring_justice: Colvin disposition: Writ of certiorari vacated and petition for certiorari denied vote: All the Justices concur, except Pinson, J., who concurs in Division 1 and in the judgment word_count: 792 date_filed_source: courtlistener citations: - 891 S.E.2d 785 record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - juvenile law - criminal procedure - appellate procedure upstream_id: "10680056" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Interest of A. H., a Child Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S22G1035, filed 2023-08-21, 317 Ga. 31. ## Opinion 317 Ga. 31 FINAL COPY S22G1035. IN THE INTEREST OF A. H., a child.. COLVIN, Justice. After adjudicating A. H. delinquent but finding that he was not in need of treatment, rehabilitation, or supervision, the juvenile court in this case entered an order dismissing the delinquency proceedings under OCGA § 15-11-600 (d) and sealing the record under OCGA § 15-11-701. The State appealed the juvenile court’s decision to seal the record, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that neither paragraph (a) (1) nor paragraph (a) (6) of OCGA § 5-7-1 authorized the State to appeal from the juvenile court’s order. We granted certiorari to determine whether “the Court of Appeals err[ed] in concluding that the State was not permitted to appeal under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a).” 1. After carefully considering the full record and the briefs of the parties, this Court has determined that the writ of certiorari issued in Case No. S22G1035 was improvidently granted. The Court of Appeals determined that the juvenile court’s order was not appealable under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (6) because it was not a “void” order. But this issue is a difficult one given the state of our case law in this area, and the issue was neither fully litigated below nor briefed by the parties in significant depth in this Court. Thus, although this issue is properly before us in a narrow sense, it is not presented in a form that would allow us to clarify the law or otherwise provide meaningful guidance. Accordingly, the writ is vacated, and the petition for certiorari is denied. 2. In connection with this case, we observe that this Court has not fully explained the contours of what makes an erroneous order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction “void” under state law for purposes of OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (6) (providing that the State may appeal “in criminal cases and adjudication of delinquency cases . . . [f]rom an order, decision, or judgment of a court where the court does not have jurisdiction or the order is otherwise void under the Constitution or laws of this state” (emphasis supplied)). We have held that, even when a court has jurisdiction over a case, certain types of errors can render the court’s order “void,” but we have not explicitly identified what principle or principles of law distinguish erroneous-but-valid orders from erroneous orders that are “void and of no legal effect.” Triola v. Triola, 299 Ga. 220, 221 (1) (787 SE2d 206) (2016). Compare State v. Owens, 296 Ga. 205, 212 (3) (b) (766 SE2d 66) (2014) (stating that “[a] judgment entered on mutually exclusive verdicts is void” without explaining why such an error renders the judgment void rather than merely erroneous), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Booth v. State, 311 Ga. 374 (858 SE2d 39) (2021); State v. Sumlin, 281 Ga. 183, 184 (1) (637 SE2d 36) (2006) (holding that an order granting a mistrial after the jury returned its verdict was void because “the time for granting a mistrial ha[d] passed,” but not explaining why this procedural error caused the order to be void rather than merely erroneous); and Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611 (1) (409 SE2d 517) (1991) (noting our longstanding rule that criminal sentences and judgments are “void if [a] court imposes punishment that the law does not allow,” without explaining the basis for that rule); with State v. Evans, 282 Ga. 63, 65 (646 SE2d 77) (2007) (noting that not just “any improper exercise of a trial court’s authority renders a judgment void” and holding that a court’s decision to conduct a bench trial over the State’s objection resulted only in “an ineffective waiver of the right to trial by jury, not a void judgment,” without explaining why an error of that type did not render the judgment void (emphasis in original)); and State v. Glover, 281 Ga. 633, 633 (641 SE2d 543) (2007) (holding that an order dismissing the State’s appeal pursuant to a statute authorizing orders of that type was not void without fully explaining why the court’s procedural and factual errors did not render its order void). Perhaps we will have an opportunity to further explain the legal principles governing voidness in a case where the issue is squarely presented and fully briefed. But this is not that case. Writ of certiorari vacated and petition for certiorari denied. All the Justices concur, except Pinson, J., who concurs in Division 1 and in the judgment. Decided August 21, 2023. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Kevin C. Armstrong, Mathew E. Plott, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellant. Lauren B. Shubow, Cody J. Jung, Paige A. Pastor, Tashe A. Dunlap, for appellee. ## Summaries written by Georgia Commons The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary. The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed its own review of a juvenile delinquency sealing order, ruling that the certiorari grant had been improvident because the underlying legal question about 'void' orders was too unsettled and undeveloped to resolve here. ### Plain-language summary A juvenile court found that a boy, identified as A. H., had committed a delinquent act but decided he did not need treatment, rehabilitation, or supervision. Under Georgia law the court dismissed the delinquency case and sealed the record. The State (through the Fulton County District Attorney's office) tried to appeal the sealing order, but the Court of Appeals of Georgia dismissed that appeal, ruling that the law letting the State appeal in criminal and delinquency cases did not cover this situation because the order was not 'void.' The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed to review whether the Court of Appeals was right, but after reading the record and briefs, it decided the question of what makes a court order 'void' under Georgia law is genuinely difficult and had not been fully argued by either side. Rather than rule on an underdeveloped issue, the court vacated its own grant of review and denied the petition, leaving the Court of Appeals' dismissal in place. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that certiorari was improvidently granted because the question of what makes a court order 'void' for purposes of the State's appeal statute was not adequately litigated or briefed, so the writ is vacated and the petition denied without resolving the underlying legal question. ### Disposition Writ of certiorari vacated and petition for certiorari denied. All the Justices concur, except Pinson, J., who concurs in Division 1 and in the judgment. ### Why it matters Prosecutors and juvenile defense lawyers remain without clear guidance on when a juvenile or criminal court order counts as legally 'void' and thus appealable by the State, meaning similar disputes over sealed delinquency records will keep arising until a future case squarely presents the issue. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,869 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22G1035.md?full=1