Edward Theodore Riley v. Mandela Graves-Fulgham

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 23, 2023
DocketA23D0198
StatusPublished

This text of Edward Theodore Riley v. Mandela Graves-Fulgham (Edward Theodore Riley v. Mandela Graves-Fulgham) 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
Edward Theodore Riley v. Mandela Graves-Fulgham, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ January 23, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23D0198. EDWARD THEODORE RILEY v. MANDELA GRAVES- FULGHAM.

On November 21, 2022, the trial court entered a final order on paternity requiring Edward Theodore Riley to pay child support. Proceeding pro se, Riley filed a timely application for discretionary appeal of the trial court’s final order, which this Court denied. See Case No. A23D0189 (decided on January 17, 2023). On December 27, 2022, Riley filed another application for discretionary appeal seeking to appeal the November 21, 2022 final order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. First, an application for discretionary review must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). Compliance with the time requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 is jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81, 82 (2) (a) (720 SE2d 170) (2011); Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Riley’s application, filed 36 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal, is untimely. Second, because we denied Riley’s prior discretionary application seeking review of the same order, the doctrine of res judicata bars him from seeking further appellate review of the trial court’s order. See Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) (642 SE2d 34) (2007); see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.”) (punctuation omitted). Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 01/23/2023 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

Related

Boyle v. State of Georgia
380 S.E.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Gable v. State
720 S.E.2d 170 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011)
Norris v. Norris
642 S.E.2d 34 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2007)
Echols v. State
534 S.E.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Edward Theodore Riley v. Mandela Graves-Fulgham, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-theodore-riley-v-mandela-graves-fulgham-gactapp-2023.