Opinion
S24C0769
10-01-2024
DAIJUAN TAIKAIN TAYLOR v. THE STATE.
The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed:
The Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner Daijuan Taikain Taylor's appeal of his conviction on the ground that his notice of appeal was filed pro se, with "[n]o withdrawal or substitution or counsel [having been] filed before or after the filing of the notice of appeal." In its dismissal order, the Court of Appeals cited Johnson v. State, 315 Ga. 876 (885 S.E.2d 725) (2023), which provides that "a court has the discretion to recognize a timely and otherwise procedurally proper pro se filing made by a defendant who is still formally represented by counsel." Id. at 890 (4). Noting that in Johnson this Court said that it expected that "courts will exercise this discretion only rarely, as when trial counsel has failed to act within the prescribed time period to preserve the defendant's right to appeal and a pro se filing would preserve that right[,]" id. at 877, the Court of Appeals concluded that "[t]he record contains nothing authorizing either the trial court or this Court to make a discretionary determination that Taylor has been abandoned by counsel such that his pro se notice of appeal could give this Court jurisdiction over his appeal." But Johnson requires no such finding of abandonment. See id. at 886 (2) (noting that counsel may fail to preserve a defendant's right of appeal "because of abandonment or some other reason" (emphasis supplied)). And, at any rate, the State has conceded in its brief to this Court that "Petitioner proceeded pro se for the entire course of proceedings" below and that "no actual assistance was rendered by the stand-by counsel."
For these reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration under a proper application of Johnson consistent with this order.
Petition granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded. All the Justices concur.