Casey W. Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Casey W. Martin v. State

DecidedApril 25, 2016

DocketA16A1236

StatusPublished

This text of Casey W. Martin v. State (Casey W. Martin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey W. Martin v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 11, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1236. CASEY W. MARTIN v. THE STATE.

Casey W. Martin filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order denying a pro se motion to modify sentence. We, however, lack jurisdiction. In construing pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature. See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 (690 SE2d 397) (2010). Here, although titled a “Motion to Modify Sentence,” Martin’s motion alleged that the trial court improperly revoked his first offender probation. Because the underlying subject matter of appeal is the revocation of Martin’s “first offender” probation, Martin was required to file an application for discretionary appeal in order to obtain review in this Court. See OCGA § 5-6- 35 (a) (5); Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 269 n. 2 (745 SE2d 1) (2013); Zamora v. State, 226 Ga. App. 105 (485 SE2d 214) (1997). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 04/11/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 11, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1236. CASEY W. MARTIN v. THE STATE.

Casey W. Martin filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order denying a pro se motion to modify sentence. We, however, lack jurisdiction. In construing pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature. See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 (690 SE2d 397) (2010). Here, although titled a “Motion to Modify Sentence,” Martin’s motion alleged that the trial court improperly revoked his first offender probation. Because the underlying subject matter of appeal is the revocation of Martin’s “first offender” probation, Martin was required to file an application for discretionary appeal in order to obtain review in this Court. See OCGA § 5-6- 35 (a) (5); Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 269 n. 2 (745 SE2d 1) (2013); Zamora v. State, 226 Ga. App. 105 (485 SE2d 214) (1997). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 04/11/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Casey W. Martin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-w-martin-v-state-gactapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack