Darwin Pompey v. Arentria Murray

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 5, 2024
DocketA25A0006
StatusPublished

This text of Darwin Pompey v. Arentria Murray (Darwin Pompey v. Arentria Murray) 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
Darwin Pompey v. Arentria Murray, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 05, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0006. DARWIN POMPEY v. ARENTRIA MURRAY.

At the request of Arentria Murray, the trial court entered a twelve-month stalking protective order against Darwin Pompey. Pompey filed a motion to aside the protective order pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), which the trial court denied. Pompey then filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction for two reasons. First, an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8), (b); Jim Ellis Atlanta v. Adamson, 283 Ga. App. 116, 116-117 (640 SE2d 688) (2006). Second, appeals of orders in domestic relations cases, including those that involve family violence,1 must also be taken by application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 461-462 (1) (510 SE2d 810) (1999), disapproved on other grounds by Gilliam v. State, 312 Ga. 60, 64 (860 SE2d 543) (2021). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals

1 “Family violence” is defined under the Family Violence Act as the occurrence of specified acts, including stalking, “between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, and other persons living or formerly living in the same household.” OCGA § 19-13-1. Pompey and Murray are parents of the same minor child. procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Thus, Pompey’s failure to file a discretionary application deprives this Court of jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/05/2024 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

Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson
640 S.E.2d 688 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Schmidt v. Schmidt
510 S.E.2d 810 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999)
Smoak v. Department of Human Resources
471 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Gilliam v. State
860 S.E.2d 543 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Darwin Pompey v. Arentria Murray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darwin-pompey-v-arentria-murray-gactapp-2024.