Opinion
A23A1212
04-12-2023
SEDRIC LANIER JENNINGS v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In May 2021, a jury found Sedric Lanier Jennings guilty of multiple drug-related charges, and his attorney filed a timely motion for new trial. In October 2022, Jennings filed a pro se motion for new trial and, thereafter, a pro se notice of appeal and request for appointment of counsel. In March 2023, the trial court dismissed Jennings' pro se motion for new trial because Jennings was represented by counsel. This appeal was nevertheless transmitted to this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction for two reasons.
First, Jennings is currently represented by counsel. The Supreme Court recently recognized that there may be situations in which a defendant is authorized to file pleadings pro se while being represented by counsel. See Johnson v. State, ___ Ga. ___, ___ (4) (Case No. S22A0964, Mar. 15, 2023). Given that Jennings' attorney filed a timely motion for new trial, which remains pending before the trial court, this does not appear to be a case in which such hybrid representation is warranted. See id. ("[T]he recognition of pro se filings by counseled defendants will be the exception and not the rule, unless the record indicates that the court recognized the filing, it will be presumed that the court did not do so."); see also Hann v. State, 292 Ga.App. 719, 720 (1) (665 S.E.2d 731) (2008) ("A notice of appeal filed while a motion for new trial is pending and unaccompanied by a proper certificate of immediate review does not confer jurisdiction in the appellate courts.").
Second, even if Jennings were entitled to hybrid representation, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Kelly v. State, 311 Ga. 827, 828 (860 S.E.2d 740) (2021). Here, Jennings' notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of an appealable order.
Because Jennings is not authorized to represent himself under the circumstances of this case - and because he has not filed a timely notice of appeal - we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.