Opinion
A24I0101
01-09-2024
JUSTIN ALAN JONES v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A Carroll County grand jury indicted Justin Jones for kidnapping and several other crimes. On August 30, 2023, the trial court entered an order in which, among other things, the court denied Jones's motion to dismiss for alleged speedy trial violations, denied Jones's request to represent himself, appointed the Carroll County Public Defender's Office to represent him, and concluded that Jones was not entitled to hybrid representation in this case. See Johnson v. State, 315 Ga. 876, 890-891 (4) (885 S.E.2d 725) (2023). On October 19, 2023, Jones filed, in the Supreme Court of Georgia, a pro se "Inmate Form for Civil Actions Filed in the Supreme Court of Georgia," seeking to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss for alleged speedy trial violations. The Supreme Court construed the filing as an application for interlocutory appeal and transferred it to this Court. We lack jurisdiction.
By statute, a party seeking appellate review by way of an application for interlocutory appeal must obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court within ten days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); see Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 589 (1) (408 S.E.2d 103) (1991) ("[A] party seeking appellate review from an interlocutory order must follow the interlocutory-application subsection, OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), seek a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, and comply with the time limitations therein."). Absent a certificate of immediate review, we lack jurisdiction over this application for interlocutory appeal. See Scruggs, 261 Ga. at 589 (1).
To the extent that Jones's filing may be construed as seeking discretionary review under OCGA § 5-6-35 (b), it was untimely filed 50 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d) (an application for discretionary review must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial court order sought to be appealed); 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 Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith).
For the above reasons, this application is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Given Jones's failure to comply with the interlocutory or discretionary appeal requirements, we express no opinion on whether the pro se filing at issue here is otherwise ineffective in light of the trial court's ruling that he is not entitled to hybrid representation in this case. See Johnson, 315 Ga. at 890-891 (4).