Opinion
A25A0207
09-24-2024
FELICIA NEAL-ANDREWS v. ACE HOMES, LLC.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following an adverse ruling, pro se defendant Felicia Neal-Andrews appealed to the superior court, which found in favor of Ace Homes, LLC. Neal-Andrews filed a direct appeal from that decision, which this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to her failure to comply with the discretionary appeal procedures. See Case No. A23A1657 (August 8, 2023). Following dismissal of the appeal, Ace Homes reapplied for a writ of possession, and Neal-Andrews filed a motion for reconsideration/emergency motion to vacate the writ. The superior court re-issued the writ of possession and denied Neal-Andrews's motion. Neal-Andrews then filed both this direct appeal and an application for discretionary appeal. We denied her discretionary application on the merits, see Case No. A25D0018 (August 28, 2024), and the direct appeal has been docketed as the current case. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons.
First, appeals from superior court decisions reviewing lower court decisions by certiorari or de novo proceedings must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b); Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga.App. 874,875 (581 S.E.2d 333) (2003). Because this case involves an appeal from magistrate court to superior court, Neal-Andrews has no right to a direct appeal, and must instead comply with the discretionary appeal procedures. See Bullock, 260 Ga.App. at 875. However, we denied her application for discretionary review. See Case No. A25D0018 (August 28, 2024).
Although the language in this code section was amended, effective July 1, 2023, the version cited here applies to this case because Neal-Andrews appealed to the superior court before July 1, 2023. See Ga. L. 2023, pp. 728-729, § 5 (providing, in part, that the amendment to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) applies to petitions for review filed in superior or state court on or after July 1, 2023).
Second, our denial of Neal-Andrews's application renders the current appeal barred by the law of the case. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga.App. 326, 327 (713 S.E.2d 438) (2011) ("[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court[.]") (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga.App. 258, 261 (1) (649 S.E.2d 313) (2007) (a ruling on an application for discretionary appeal acts as res judicata in later proceedings).
For the above reasons, this direct appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.