Opinion
A22D0168
12-17-2021
THOMAS HAWK TRIBBLE v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In this probation revocation case, the trial court entered an order denying Thomas Hawk Tribble's pro se motions, explaining that the motions were filed in an effort to delay Tribble's evidentiary probation revocation hearing, which was scheduled to occur on November 22, 2021. Tribble filed an application for discretionary appeal, seeking to challenge the trial court's order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
On November 12, 2021, Tribble filed motions for a plea in bar and to correct clerical errors and modify a void sentence.
Tribble's application materials include filings and a transcript from a hearing on previous petitions to revoke Tribble's probation but not the petition for modification of revocation that resulted in the scheduling of the November 22, 2021 hearing referenced in the trial court's order.
Because it appears that no final judgment has been entered in the probation revocation proceeding and the case remains pending below, the order Tribble seeks to appeal is interlocutory. Although Tribble filed an application for discretionary appeal, as described in OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the interlocutory appeal procedures - including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court - set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 S.E.2d 103) (1991). Tribble's failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives this Court of jurisdiction over his application, which is hereby DISMISSED.
OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5) provides that "orders revoking probation" are subject to the discretionary appeal procedure. (Emphasis supplied.)