Paul Marvin Hood v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    April 18, 2018
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A18D0401. PAUL MARVIN HOOD v. THE STATE.
    On January 31, 2018, the trial court entered an order revoking Paul Marvin
    Hood’s probation. On March 21, 2018, Hood filed this application for discretionary
    appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
    Hood’s application is untimely. To be timely, a discretionary application must
    be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35
    (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot
    accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State,
    
    190 Ga. App. 734
    , 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Hood’s application was filed 49 days
    after entry of the order he seeks to appeal. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to
    consider the application, which is hereby DISMISSED.1
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    04/18/2018
    I certify that the above is a true extract from
    the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    Witness my signature and the seal of said court
    hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
    , Clerk.
    1
    We received Hood’s “Motion for Extension of Time to File a Discretionary
    Appeal,” on February 12, 2018. However, we could not docket the motion because
    it did not contain a stamp “filed” copy of the trial court’s order. See Court of Appeals
    Rule 16 (c) (extension of time to file discretionary applications must comply with
    Rule 40 (b), Emergency Motions); Rule 40 (b) (2) (emergency motion must contain
    a stamped “filed” copy of order to be appealed). Hood then filed the same document
    with a stamp “filed” copy of the trial court’s order on March 21, 2018. We construed
    this second attempt to file the document as an application. However, even if we
    construed this document as a motion for extension of time, it would nonetheless be
    untimely because this Court may only grant an extension of time to file an application
    for discretionary appeal if it is made “before expiration of the period for filing as
    originally prescribed or as extended by a permissible previous order.” OCGA §
    5-6-39 (d); see also Gable v. State, 
    290 Ga. 81
    , 84-85 (2) (a) (720 SE2d 170) (2011).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A18D0401

Filed Date: 4/20/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/20/2018