Cuba A. Martin, III. v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cuba A. Martin, III. v. State

DecidedJune 6, 2023

DocketA23A1523

StatusPublished

This text of Cuba A. Martin, III. v. State (Cuba A. Martin, III. 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

Cuba A. Martin, III. v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 06, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A1523. CUBA A. MARTIN, III v. THE STATE.

Following a 2015 jury trial, Cuba A. Martin, III was convicted of false imprisonment, theft, and other crimes. This Court subsequently affirmed Martin’s convictions in an unpublished opinion. Martin v. State, Case No. A19A1527 (September 11, 2019). In January 2023, Martin filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the statutes under which he was charged were invalid. The trial court denied that motion, and Martin filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. Martin’s motion shows that regardless of its nomenclature, it sought to set aside or vacate his conviction and sentence. See State v. Bell, 274 Ga. 719, 719 (1) (559 SE2d 477) (2002) (when a court considers pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature); Sledge v. State, 312 Ga. App. 97, 98 (1) (717 SE2d 682) (2011) (“[c]ourts should examine the substance of a motion, rather than its nomenclature, to determine what sort of relief is sought”). As the Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear, however, a post-conviction motion challenging the validity of a conviction and seeking to set aside or vacate the same is not a valid procedure in a criminal case. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Williams v. State, 283 Ga. 94, 94 (656 SE2d 144) (2008). Thus, any effort to appeal from the denial of such a motion must be dismissed. Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). In light of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/06/2023 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,____________________ June 06, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A1523. CUBA A. MARTIN, III v. THE STATE.

Following a 2015 jury trial, Cuba A. Martin, III was convicted of false imprisonment, theft, and other crimes. This Court subsequently affirmed Martin’s convictions in an unpublished opinion. Martin v. State, Case No. A19A1527 (September 11, 2019). In January 2023, Martin filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the statutes under which he was charged were invalid. The trial court denied that motion, and Martin filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. Martin’s motion shows that regardless of its nomenclature, it sought to set aside or vacate his conviction and sentence. See State v. Bell, 274 Ga. 719, 719 (1) (559 SE2d 477) (2002) (when a court considers pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature); Sledge v. State, 312 Ga. App. 97, 98 (1) (717 SE2d 682) (2011) (“[c]ourts should examine the substance of a motion, rather than its nomenclature, to determine what sort of relief is sought”). As the Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear, however, a post-conviction motion challenging the validity of a conviction and seeking to set aside or vacate the same is not a valid procedure in a criminal case. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Williams v. State, 283 Ga. 94, 94 (656 SE2d 144) (2008). Thus, any effort to appeal from the denial of such a motion must be dismissed. Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). In light of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/06/2023 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)

Cuba A. Martin, III. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuba-a-martin-iii-v-state-gactapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack