Daniel Castleberry v. Stephanie Anne Lockhart

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 11, 2019
DocketA19A1013
StatusPublished

This text of Daniel Castleberry v. Stephanie Anne Lockhart (Daniel Castleberry v. Stephanie Anne Lockhart) 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
Daniel Castleberry v. Stephanie Anne Lockhart, (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ January 22, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1013. DANIEL CASTLEBERRY v. STEPHANIE ANNE LOCKHART et al.

In November 2018, Daniel Castleberry attempted to file a petition for a writ of mandamus against two individual defendants. The trial court denied filing of the petition under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), on the ground that it showed a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact. Castleberry then filed both a direct appeal – which has been docketed as the instant case, No. A19A1013 – and an application for discretionary review, which we denied on the merits. See Daniel Castleberry v. Stephanie Anne Biggers a/k/a Stephanie Anne Lockhart et al., No. A19D0245 (Jan. 10, 2019). Because we rejected Castleberry’s challenge to the trial court order sought to be appealed here in Case No. A19D0245, the current appeal is barred by the law of the case. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 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 . . . .”) (punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007) (“[T]he denial of an application for discretionary appeal is an adjudication on the merits of the underlying order and acts as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.”); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 (540 SE2d 612) (2001) (a defendant “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal”). Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review in the instant appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Jackson, 273 Ga. at 320; Ross, 310 Ga. App. at 327-328. Castleberry’s motions for oral argument, to verify the absence of an account summary in a federal court case, for the production of transcripts from a Tennessee court, and for DNA testing are DENIED as MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 01/22/2019 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

Jackson v. State
540 S.E.2d 612 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Ross v. State
713 S.E.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Hook v. Bergen
649 S.E.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel Castleberry v. Stephanie Anne Lockhart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-castleberry-v-stephanie-anne-lockhart-gactapp-2019.