Corey Gardhigh v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 11, 2025
DocketA25A1129
StatusPublished

This text of Corey Gardhigh v. State (Corey Gardhigh 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
Corey Gardhigh v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ February 11, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A1129. COREY GARDHIGH v. THE STATE.

Following a jury trial, Corey Gardhigh was convicted of felony murder and voluntary manslaughter. The trial court vacated Gardhigh’s felony murder conviction by operation of law and sentenced him on the voluntary manslaughter conviction, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Gardhigh v. State, 309 Ga. 153 (844 SE2d 821) (2020). Gardhigh subsequently filed an extraordinary motion for new trial, which the trial court dismissed on October 2, 2024. Gardhigh then filed his notice of appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge that order on November 7, 2024. Finding no basis for exercising its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this Court. See Case No. S25A0382 (January 14, 2025). We, however, lack jurisdiction for two reasons. First, Gardhigh’s appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial court order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Ebeling v. State, 355 Ga. App. 469, 469 (844 SE2d 518) (2020). Gardhigh’s notice of appeal was filed 36 days after entry of the trial court’s order and is thus untimely. Second, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7) requires a discretionary application to appeal from an order denying or dismissing an extraordinary motion for new trial. Davis v. State, 182 Ga. App. 736, 736-737 (356 SE2d 762) (1987). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Gardhigh’s failure to follow the discretionary review procedure thus deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. See Bradberry v. State, 315 Ga. App. 434, 437 (727 SE2d 208) (2012). For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 02/11/2025 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

Related

Davis v. State
356 S.E.2d 762 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Bradberry v. State
727 S.E.2d 208 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Smoak v. Department of Human Resources
471 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
GARDHIGH v. THE STATE (And Vice Versa)
844 S.E.2d 821 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Corey Gardhigh v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corey-gardhigh-v-state-gactapp-2025.