This appeal involves a constitutional challenge to OCGA § § 16-15-3 1 I, 16-15-3 2, and 16-15-4 a, provisions in the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act the “Act”. OCGA § 16-15-1 et seq. Appellant, a juvenile, was charged in a delinquency petition with one count of battery, two counts of simple battery, one count of influencing a witness, and two counts of street gang activity. The battery and simple battery charges served as the predicate offenses for the criminal street gang counts pursuant to OCGA § 16-15-4 a, which makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or associated with a criminal street gang to conduct or participate in criminal street gang activity through commission of any offense enumerated in paragraph 1 of Code Section 16-15-3.” Appellant moved to dismiss the street gang counts on the ground that OCGA § § 16-15-3 and 16-15-4 a are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but certified its order for immediate review and this Court granted appellant’s application for interlocutory appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 b. Because we find that the challenged sections are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss. 1. It is incumbent upon this Court to inquire into its own jurisdiction, regardless of whether the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the parties. Nix v. Watts , 284 Ga. 100 664 SE2d 194 2008. As recently reaffirmed in Jenkins v. State , __Ga.__ Case No. S08A0761 decided November 17, 2008, this Court has jurisdiction to consider a constitutional question that has been raised and distinctly ruled upon in the trial court. Here, the record shows that appellant’s motion to dismiss challenged solely on constitutional grounds the State’s charges of street gang activity. Although the trial court’s order does not specifically identify or substantively discuss the constitutional issues raised in appellant’s motion, the trial court clearly ruled on the constitutional issues inasmuch as those issues were the only issues raised in the motion. Accordingly, we find the constitutional issues forming the basis for this appeal were raised and distinctly ruled upon in the trial court, thus invoking this Court’s constitutional question jurisdiction. See Jenkins , supra.
2. Appellant contends that OCGA § § 16-15-4 a, 16-15-3 2, and 16-15-3 1 are unconstitutionally vague because they fail to provide clear warning as to what constitutes “criminal gang activity,” or being illegally “associated with” a “criminal street gang,” and fail to set explicit standards for enforcement. We disagree.
