Opinion
A22A0144
09-24-2021
REGINALD CARSWELL v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In 2018, Reginald Carswell was convicted of theft by receiving stolen property and driving with a suspended or revoked license. Following his conviction, Carswell filed several pro se motions, including a "Motion for Complete Recordation of All Proceedings," "Motion for Substitution of Counsel," and "Motion for SelfRepresentation." On October 15, 2018, the trial court denied these motions. On February 14, 2019, Carswell filed this appeal to challenge the trial court's order. We, however, lack jurisdiction for two reasons.
Carswell's post-conviction counsel filed an amended motion for new trial. On June 22, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying that motion. That order is the subject of a separate appeal in Case No. A22A0131, which remains pending before this Court.
First, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the entry of an appealable judgment. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer appellate jurisdiction on this Court. Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 S.E.2d 756) (1995). Because Carswell's notice of appeal was filed 122 days after entry of the subject order, it was untimely.
Second, under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from "[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below." Here, the record shows that when this appeal was initiated, Carswell's previously filed motion for new trial remained pending below. Consequently, to obtain review of the trial court's October 15 order, Carswell was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate review within ten days of the order and filing an application within ten days of the certificate. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 173-174 (1) (829 S.E.2d 348) (2019). His failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction in this appeal. Duke, 306 Ga. at 172 (1).
Because we lack jurisdiction, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.