Following a hearing, 14-year-old S. F. was adjudicated delinquent after admitting to acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault and robbery. The juvenile court sentenced S. F. pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-63 a 2 B ii, which classifies certain offenses as “designated felony acts,” and ordered that he be placed in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for five years and confined in a youth development center for 30 months. S. F. appeals contending that the juvenile court participated in the “plea negotiation” by offering him a “plea,” and then threatened him with a longer term of confinement if he elected to proceed with the adjudication rather than entering an admission. He also claims that the juvenile court failed to make the requisite findings of fact pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-63 c. For the following reasons, we affirm.
1. S. F. first contends that the juvenile court “directly involved itself in the so-called plea negotiation,” and threatened him with a longer term of confinement if he proceeded with adjudication rather than entering an admission. At the beginning of the hearing, S. F.’s counsel announced that the defense was ready for the bench trial. After the State outlined the facts of the case at the request of the court, the court asked about the disposition of S. F.’s juvenile co-defendant. The State explained that the co-defendant made an admission and received “thirty six months.” The court explained: “The only thing I would agree to do in this case would be to give S. F. the same thing that the other guy got. I wouldn’t give him any more. I’m not gonna give him any less. I believe if the facts come out as they appear to be, he would be a party to a crime and equally culpable . . . of course I mean I would listen to your presentation.” S. F.’s counsel responded: “I think that my client would like to go for the trial.” The court then proceeded to swear in the witnesses after which the following colloquy took place: The State: Your Honor, as the first witness, we’d call Deputy — The Court: Defense counsel, let me ask you a question. He knows what he’s facing Trial Counsel: Uh, huh. The Court: And the other, he knows —the co-defendant pled, right Do you understand that he’s facing the entire ball of wax Trial Counsel: I mean I — The Court: Do you want to talk to him one more time Trial counsel: I will. The Court: Just let him know that they’re facing the whole thing. Trial counsel: Yeah. The Court: The judge’s indication that he would plea to three years, which this other gentleman got, would be similar to a plea offer as opposed to anything else. pause while counsel conferred with S. F. The Court: Defense counsel, do you have an announcement in this case for the record Trial Counsel: Yes, sir. S. F., would like to enter his admission at this time. The court then posed a series of questions to determine that the admission was knowing and voluntary. In response to the court’s inquiries, S. F. responded affirmatively that he understood the rights he was waiving including the right to a trial and to present witnesses. At the end of this inquiry, the court asked S. F.: “I’m asking you today, right now, do you want to continue this admission or do you want to have a trial” S. F. responded: “I’ll just go ahead today and continue with the admission.” S. F. admitted that he and his co-defendant were “over at the track messing around,” and that he was “talking to the lady at the gate, asking her which horse was gonna win” when his co-defendant hit the victim on the head with a brick. S. F. stated further that he ran and that when he looked back he saw the victim on the ground. The court found that S. F. was party to the crime of aggravated assault for hitting the victim on the head and a party to the crime of robbery for taking the victim’s waist bag containing $200.
