The Juvenile Court of Chatham County dismissed a delinquency petition which alleged that 14-year-old N. C. committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the offense of aggravated sodomy, OCGA § 16-6-2 a 2.1 N. C. appeals, contending that the juvenile court violated his right to due process when it dismissed the delinquency petition without a hearing pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-30.2. As discussed below, however, OCGA § 15-11-30.2 f expressly states that a hearing under that Code Section is not required in delinquency proceedings which are based upon allegations of aggravated sodomy. Accordingly, there was no error, and we affirm. Under OCGA § 15-11-28 b 2 A iv, the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of any child 13 to 17 years of age who is alleged to have committed aggravated sodomy.2 Before indictment, however,the district attorney may, after investigation and for extraordinary cause, decline prosecution in the superior court of a child 13 to 17 years of age alleged to have committed an offense specified in subparagraph A of this paragraph. Upon declining such prosecution in the superior court, the district attorney shall immediately cause a petition to be filed in the appropriate juvenile court for adjudication.OCGA § 15-11-28 b 2 C. See OCGA § 15-11-35 4 the State or another party may commence a delinquency proceeding in juvenile court by, inter alia, filing a delinquency petition that complies with the Code.3
The record shows the following undisputed facts.4 On December 7, 2007, the State filed a delinquency petition in the juvenile court alleging that N. C. had committed aggravated sodomy with force and against the will of the victim. The juvenile court conducted an arraignment hearing three days later, and scheduled an adjudicatory hearing for December 19. On December 11, the State filed a “Motion to Decline Criminal Prosecution in the Superior Court and Assert Jurisdiction in the Juvenile Court,” pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-28 b 2 C.5 A week later, the State filed a second “motion,” which stated that, after further consideration of the case, the State had concluded that it would be in the best interests of the State and the parties for the superior court to have jurisdiction over the matter. The juvenile court granted the second “motion” and dismissed the delinquency petition after concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
