Gary Jaquan Bailey v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 19, 2021
DocketA22I0062
StatusPublished

This text of Gary Jaquan Bailey v. State (Gary Jaquan Bailey 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
Gary Jaquan Bailey v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 09, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22I0062. GARY JAQUAN BAILEY v. THE STATE.

Gary Jaquan Bailey is facing prosecution in superior court, and he filed a motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. On October 1, 2021, the superior court denied the motion. The same day, Bailey obtained a certificate of immediate review, and he filed this application for interlocutory appeal on October 13, 2021. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), an application for interlocutory appeal must be filed within ten days of the trial court granting a timely certificate of immediate review. See Genter v. State, 218 Ga. App. 311, 311 (460 SE2d 879) (1995). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) are jurisdictional. See State v. Wheeler, 310 Ga. 72, 76 (3) (849 SE2d 401) (2020). Here, Bailey filed his application twelve days after the trial court entered the certificate of immediate review. The application is thus untimely, and it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/09/2021 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. A22I0062 concurrence dubitante.

I concur dubitante. The Juvenile Code provides that parties dissatisfied with a transfer order like the one before us “have the right to have [it] reviewed by the Court of Appeals.” O.C.G.A. § 15-11-564. This court has twice held that O.C.G.A. § 15-11-564 does not mean what it says. On the first such occasion, our Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. In Interest of J. H., 340 Ga. App. 733, 733, 797 S.E.2d 185, 186 (2017), rev'd sub nom. In Interest of K.S., 303 Ga. 542, 814 S.E.2d 324 (2018), and vacated sub nom. Interest of K. S., 348 Ga. App. 440, 823 S.E.2d 536 (2019). On the second, certiorari was not sought. Interest of J. A., 357 Ga. App. 331, 850 S.E.2d 770 (2020).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Interest Of: T. L., a Child
797 S.E.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
In the Interest Of: K. S., a Child
823 S.E.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2019)
Genter v. State
460 S.E.2d 879 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1995)
In re Interest of K.S.
814 S.E.2d 324 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)
IN THE INTEREST OF K.S., a Child
303 Ga. 542 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)
State v. Wheeler
849 S.E.2d 401 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gary Jaquan Bailey v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-jaquan-bailey-v-state-gactapp-2021.