Opinion
A23A0640 A23A0641
12-29-2022
DEMETRIC JOSEPH v. THE STATE DEMETRIC JOSEPH v. THE STATE
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In 2011, Demetric Joseph was convicted of armed robbery, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Joseph thereafter filed a motion for new trial, which was amended numerous times. In July 2021, before deciding the new trial motion, the trial court granted Joseph's motion to represent himself in all post-conviction matters, including any direct appeal. That order further required the public defender assigned to represent Joseph to remain available to act as "consulting counsel" for Joseph.
On September 21, 2022, the trial court entered an order denying Joseph's motion for new trial, as amended. Acting on Joseph's behalf, his public defender filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2022, and the appeal was docketed as Case No. A23A0640. On October 17, 2022, Joseph filed a pro se notice of appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, and that appeal was docketed as Case No. A23A0641. Relying on the trial court's order allowing Joseph to represent himself in all post-conviction matters, we dismissed the appeal in Case No.A23A0640 as duplicative. Joseph has now moved for reconsideration of that order, asserting that the notice of appeal the public defender filed on his behalf in Case No. A23A0640 constituted an entry of appearance. See Uniform Sup. Ct. Rule 4.2 (providing that the filing of "any pleading" on behalf of a party "shall constitute an entry of appearance by the person(s) signing such pleading"). And because Joseph is now represented by counsel, he contends that the subsequent, pro se notice of appeal he filed is void. See Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) (767 S.E.2d 24) (2014) ("A criminal defendant in Georgia does not have the right to represent himself and also be represented by an attorney, and pro se filings by represented parties are therefore unauthorized and without effect.") (punctuation omitted). Thus, Joseph asks that we reinstate the appeal in Case No. A23A0640 and dismiss the appeal in Case No. A23A0641.
Having been read and considered, Joseph's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Case No. A23 A0640 is hereby REINSTATED, and Case No. A23 A0641 is hereby DISMISSED.