☢ test - Í

delinquent.” 2. No abuse of discretion here as juvenile court carefully considered the six criteria set out in OCGA § 15-11-602(b). “In this case, the court was authorized to find that C.M.'s school disciplinary record; record of delinquency including acts of violence, aggression, and intimidation; violations of probation while living at home; immaturity; susceptibility to temptation; use of marijuana; lack of positive male role models in his life; lack of structure in his life; expulsion from school; and absence of other activities to occupy his time during the day demonstrated that restrictive custody was in his best interests, as well as the community's, and was not arbitrary.” Juvenile here was on probation based on obstruction of an officer and aggravate assault by pointing a knife at juvenile’s brother; he violated probation by making terroristic threats against a teacher. 3. Juvenile waived any objection to the court’s reliance on a Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI) provided to the court after the disposition hearing. “[T]he probation officer testified that C.M. ‘had a DAI score of about 20, placing him in the high risk category.’ Therefore the introduction of the DAI document, even if error, was merely cumulative of the probation officer's testimony, and presents no basis for reversal. [Cit.] Moreover, ‘[C.M.] cannot object to the admission of evidence for the first time on appeal.’ Lambert v. Jones, 250 Ga. 603, 606, 299 S.E.2d 716 (1983) (citations omitted). At the disposition hearing, counsel for C.M. never objected in any manner to the court's ruling that it would issue an order after it had received the DAI document from the probation officer.” Decided under pre-2014 Juvenile Code. In re: R.M., 329 Ga.App. 725, 766 S.E.2d 126 (November 18, 2014). Revocation of juvenile’s probation affirmed; under pre-2014 Juvenile Code, revocation petition was sufficient. 1. Contents of revocation petition. Contrary to juvenile’s argument, revocation petition isn’t required to meet “the same contents as a delinquency petition as set forth in former OCGA § 15–11–38.1 and Uniform Juvenile Code Rule 3.8,” nor must the State “follow the same statutory steps that are required to initiate a delinquency proceeding under former OCGA § 15–11–39.” Rather, “requirements for a petition to revoke probation are controlled by former OCGA § 15–11–40.” Subsection (c) simply required that “[t]he petition shall set forth in clear and concise language the grounds upon which the relief is requested.” “See In re: B.C., 169 Ga.App. 200, 201–202, 311 S.E.2d 857 (1983) (‘[B]efore a juvenile court may revoke an order granting probation, a petition must be filed requesting such relief.’). And to satisfy due process, a ‘petition must contain sufficient factual details to inform the juvenile of the nature of the offense and must provide data adequate to enable the accused to prepare his defense.’ In re: A.T., 246 Ga.App. 30, 31, 539 S.E.2d 540 (2000) (delinquency petition need not inform juvenile he is being charged with designated felony and could be sentenced to restrictive custody). Here, the State denominated its filing as ‘State's Motion to Revoke Probation and Petition to Seek Relief under OCGA § 15–11–40.’ The State's petition met the requirements of former OCGA § 15–11–40(c) and (d)[fn], and that is all that was required.” 2. Service of petition. “Former OCGA § 15– 11–40(d) provided that after the petition is filed, then pursuant to former OCGA § 15–11–39.1(a), a summons is served at least 24 hours before the hearing.” Such service was perfected both on juvenile personally and on his guardian on his behalf. 3. Proof of probation violation was shown beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. “See T.S.I. v. State, 139 Ga.App. 775, 776–777(1), 229 S.E.2d 553 (1976) (in juvenile probation revocation, proof of violation must be beyond reasonable doubt).” Violations included new offenses, failure of drug test, and failure to be supervised by an adult. In re: C.H., 319 Ga.App. 373, 735 S.E.2d 291 (December 11, 2012). Juvenile admitted to allegations of delinquency petition which charged that he a) committed public indecency, a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and b) violation of probation. Held, juvenile court erred by sentencing juvenile to 30 days confinement in YDC. Court couldn’t order confinement based on violation of probation without a petition to revoke, not present here. “As we have held, due process requires that ‘before a juvenile court may revoke an order granting probation, a petition must be filed requesting such relief.’ In re: B.C., 169 Ga.App. 200, 201 (311 S.E.2d 857) (1983) (‘[N]o petition to revoke appellant's probation was ever filed in the juvenile court. Indeed, it appears that only a petition of delinquency was filed[.]’).” In re: N.M., 316 Ga.App. 649, 730 S.E.2d 127 (July 5, 2012). Restrictive custody order following delinquency adjudication for designated felony affirmed. Disposition of a juvenile upon a violation of probation is governed by the law “at the time of the juvenile's behavior for which he was originally adjudicated delinquent,” not at the time of the probation violation. Here, juvenile’s act of carrying a knife to school, first offense, was a designated felony when he committed it, but was removed from the designated felonies list on the same day he was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation, May 25, 2010. A year later, his probation was revoked and he was committed to DJJ custody. Held, contrary to juvenile’s argument, “a dispositional order imposed upon the revocation of probation relates to the original delinquent act,” and therefore is governed by the law in effect when the original act was committed. “In the criminal context, it is clear that postrevocation penalties relate to the original offense. Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700–701(II)(A), 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000).” Holding otherwise would create ex post facto issues. “If the legislature had amended the designated felony statute to increase the consequences of committing a designated felony, N.M. could not have been sanctioned under the law so amended. In