Opinion
A24I0245
07-02-2024
RILEY HADFIELD v. THE STATE
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Riley Hadfield seeks interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress. The trial court's order was filed on June 3, 2024, and the certificate of immediate review was filed on June 20, 2024. We lack jurisdiction.
Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review should be had. A timely certificate of immediate review is a jurisdictional requirement. See Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga.App. 23, 24 (2) (209 S.E.2d 715) (1974). If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until final judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 178 (3) (a) (829 S.E.2d 348) (2019), citing Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 175 (200 S.E.2d 748) (1973). The Supreme Court has interpreted "entered" to mean "filed with the clerk of the trial court." Turner, supra.
Here, although the certificate of immediate review was signed on June 10, it was not entered until June 20 - 17 days after entry of the order denying the motion to suppress. Thus, the certificate of immediate review is untimely. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga.App. 687 (204 S.E.2d 317) (1974) ("[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or interlocutory judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within ten days after entry of the judgment appealed from.").
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.