Opinion
A24A1194
04-04-2024
DAVORIC TILMAN v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
After a jury found Davoric Tilman guilty of two counts of aggravated stalking, his counsel filed a timely motion for a new trial. Two days later, Tilman filed a pro se notice of appeal. Pretermitting whether Tilman's pro se notice of appeal is valid, we lack jurisdiction because the appeal is premature.
See Johnson v. State, 315 Ga. 876, 890-891 (4) & n. 15 (885 S.E.2d 725) (2023) (discussing the limited circumstances in which a criminal defendant is authorized to file pro se pleadings while represented by counsel).
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." And under OCGA § 5-6-38 (a), "[a] notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the judgment being appealed, or, if a motion for new trial is filed within 30 days of the judgment, 'the notice shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order granting, overruling, or otherwise finally disposing of the motion.'" Hann v. State, 292 Ga.App. 719, 719 (1) (665 S.E.2d 731) (2008) (quoting OCGA § 5-6-38 (a)). Here, the record contains no indication that the trial court has ruled on Tilman's counseled motion for a new trial. His pro se notice of appeal - filed while his motion for a new trial remains pending before the trial court - therefore is premature, even if it is not a nullity. See High v. State, 282 Ga. 244, 244, n. * (647 S.E.2d 270) (2007); see also Johnson v. State, 315 Ga. 876, 889 (3) (885 S.E.2d 725) (2023) (overruling prior decisions "to the extent that they hold that pro se filings by counseled defendants are always legal nullities"). "A notice of appeal filed while a motion for new trial is pending and unaccompanied by a proper certificate of immediate review does not confer jurisdiction in the appellate courts." Hann, 292 Ga.App. at 720 (1); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction over this premature appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.
Because we lack jurisdiction for the reason stated above, we take no position on the question of whether Tilman's pro se notice of appeal is a legal nullity. See generally Johnson, 315 Ga. at 889-891 (3)-(4) & n. 15.