Opinion
A24A0432
10-25-2023
ANTANIAH BORDEN v. YANMIN XU.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following an adverse ruling, defendant Antaniah Borden appealed to the superior court, which issued a writ of possession in favor of the plaintiff. Borden then appealed directly to this Court, and we dismissed her appeal for failure to comply with the discretionary review procedures. Borden v. Xu, Case No. A23A1744 (July 24, 2023); see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b).
After our remittitur issued, Borden filed a "Renewed Motion for New Trial or Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict," which the superior court denied. Borden then again appealed directly to this Court. We again lack jurisdiction.
As we explained in our order dismissing Borden's prior appeal, appeals from superior court decisions reviewing lower court decisions must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b); Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga.App. 874, 875 (581 S.E.2d 333) (2003); see also Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 469 (448 S.E.2d 192) (1994) ("[T]he underlying subject matter generally controls over the relief sought in determining the proper procedure to follow to appeal."). "Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional." Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga.App. 257, 257 (471 S.E.2d 60) (1996). Borden's failure to follow the proper procedure once again deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, pretermitting whether any form of appellate review otherwise may lie on the procedural posture of this case. Consequently, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.