Danielle Smith v. State

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 25, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A27A0210. DANIELLE SMITH v. THE STATE.

Danielle Smith was indicted on one count each of impersonating an officer, conspiracy to commit theft by taking, possession of a false identification document, and obstruction of an officer. On February 2, 2026, she entered a negotiated guilty plea to misdemeanor possession of a false identification document, and the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi as to the charges of impersonating an officer and conspiracy to commit theft by taking. Notably, however, the judgment did not address the obstruction charge, and the record does not otherwise contain any disposition of that count. On February 27, 2026, Smith filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction for at least two reasons.

First, because the court has not yet entered a written judgment of conviction or sentence on the obstruction count, Smith’s case remains pending, and she was thus required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, to obtain appellate review. See Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). See also OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1) (providing that appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below”); Seals v. State, 311 Ga. 739, 742(2)(a) (860 SE2d 419) (2021) (explaining that a criminal case is not final or ripe for appeal until a sentence has been entered on each count of the indictment), disapproved on other grounds in Gonzales v. State, 315 Ga. 661, 664(1)(b) (884 SE2d 339) (2023).

Second, even assuming that the court’s judgment is final, a direct appeal is improper. Effective May 14, 2025, “[d]irect appeals from guilty pleas” must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(5.3), (b); Ga. L. 2025, pp. 621, 623, §§ 1-2, 4-2. See also Clark v. State, 378 Ga. App. 111, 111 n.1 (924 SE2d 346) (2025). Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional. Hester v. State, 378 Ga. App. 121, 121 (924 SE2d 457) (2025). Consequently, Smith’s failure to comply with the discretionary review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/25/2026

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.