Opinion
A23A0231
06-02-2023
HOWARD v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
This interlocutory appeal is from a trial court order granting the state's motion to introduce other acts evidence and denying the defendant's motion to exclude such evidence. We granted the defendant's application for interlocutory appeal in order to consider what appeared to be an issue of first impression involving the interplay between OCGA § 17-7-95 (c), limiting the use of a defendant's plea of nolo contendere against him in another proceeding, and OCGA § 24-4-414, permitting the use of evidence of the commission of an offense of child molestation. But having now had the opportunity to review the record, it appears that the trial court has not yet ruled on this issue, which was not raised in either the state's motion to introduce the other acts evidence or the defendant's motion to exclude it. Rather, the issue was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration that was filed after the issuance of the certificate of immediate review and upon which there is no ruling in the record before us.
"[T]his [c]ourt cannot address any issue on which the trial court did not rule. Indeed, this [c]ourt is for the correction of errors of law, and when the trial court has not ruled on an issue, we will not address it." Stanley v. Govt. Emps. Ins. Co., 344 Ga.App. 342, 346 (2) (810 S.E.2d 179) (2018)) (citations and punctuation omitted). Accord State v. McCarter, 314 Ga.App. 542, 545 n. 13 (724 S.E.2d 843) (2012); Schaff v. State, 304 Ga.App. 638, 641 (1) n. 10 (697 S.E.2d 305) (2010). Because the trial court did not rule on the issue that was the basis for our grant of the application in this case, the interlocutory appeal is hereby dismissed as having been improvidently granted.