Crosson v. Conway

42 Citing cases

  1. Duke v. State

    306 Ga. 171 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that the collateral order doctrine did not apply to an order denying a criminal defendant's request for public funding for expert witnesses and investigators to aid his defense

    We have said the same about many other statutory requirements for appeal. See, e.g., Crosson v. Conway , 291 Ga. 220, 221-222 (2), 728 S.E.2d 617 (2012) (noting that both a timely notice of appeal filed in the trial court and a timely application for certificate of probable cause filed in this Court are necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to OCGA § 9-14-52 (b) ); Cody v. State , 277 Ga. 553, 553, 592 S.E.2d 419 (2004) (holding that compliance with the deadline for filing a notice of appeal set forth in OCGA § 5-6-38 (a) is an "absolute requirement" to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court); State of Ga. v. Intl. Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan , 299 Ga. 392, 399 (4), 788 S.E.2d 455 (2016) ("Appeals in cases to which OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) applies must come by timely application, and if they come instead by a notice of appeal, the appellate court is without jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal."). The order at issue in this case is clearly not a final judgment, as Duke's case remains pending in the court below. Duke

  2. Greene v. Wallace

    No. A24D0258 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2024)

    "The filing deadline is jurisdictional, and this [C]ourt is unable to accept an untimely application." In the Interest of B. R. F., 338 Ga.App. 762, 762 (791 S.E.2d 859) (2016) (footnote omitted); see Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 221 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012) ("Courts have no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements imposed by statute. Instead, Georgia courts may excuse compliance with a statutory requirement for appeal only where necessary to avoid or remedy a constitutional violation concerning the appeal.")

  3. Dougherty v. State

    315 Ga. 188 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 1 times
    Alluding to the effect of eliminating motions for out-of-time appeal on defendants whose counsel abandon them post-conviction

    Id. at 159 (5), 834 S.E.2d 733. See Crosson v. Conway , 291 Ga. 220, 221 (1), 728 S.E.2d 617 (2012) ; Gibson v. Turpin , 270 Ga. 855, 857 (1), 513 S.E.2d 186 (1999). It is troubling that the Court's standard advisory in dismissal orders (in the postRowland era, until our 2022 decision in Cook ) – an advisory that was included in our July 2019 dismissal order in this case – did not advise appellants that they could seek an out-of-time appeal in the jurisdiction of confinement in habeas corpus proceedings.

  4. Larry v. State

    No. A25D0189 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2025)

    As this application was filed 56 days after entry of the order at issue, it is untimely and is hereby DISMISSED. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012); see also Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989) ("The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional and this [C]ourt cannot accept an appeal not made in compliance therewith.").

  5. Wright v. State

    No. A25D0163 (Ga. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024)

    The instant application was filed 297 days after the entry of the order Wright seeks to appeal and is untimely. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012). Accordingly, Wright's untimely application is hereby DISMISSED.

  6. Hutchison v. State

    No. A25D0134 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2024)

    The instant application was filed 114 days after the entry of the order Hutchison seeks to appeal and is untimely. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012). Accordingly, Hutchison's application is hereby DISMISSED.

  7. Johnson v. Bend

    No. A25D0099 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2024)

    As this application was filed 34 days after entry of the order at issue, it is untimely and is hereby DISMISSED. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012); see also Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989) ("The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional and this [C]ourt cannot accept an appeal not made in compliance therewith.").

  8. Reynolds v. Reynolds

    No. A25D0075 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2024)

    As this application was filed 34 days after entry of the order at issue, it is untimely and is hereby DISMISSED. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012); see also Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989) ("The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional and this [C]ourt cannot accept an appeal not made in compliance therewith.").

  9. Johnson v. State

    No. A25D0011 (Ga. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2024)

    Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989). As this application was filed 34 days after entry of the order Johnson seeks to appeal, it is untimely. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012). Accordingly, Johnson's application is hereby DISMISSED.

  10. Bennett v. State

    No. A25D0015 (Ga. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024)

    As this application was filed 75 days after entry of the order Bennett seeks to appeal, it is untimely and is hereby DISMISSED. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 S.E.2d 617) (2012); see also Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989) ("The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional and this [C]ourt cannot accept an appeal not made in compliance therewith.").