Golden Roberson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: A25A1915
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

March 9, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A25A1915. ROBERSON v. THE STATE.

PIPKIN, Judge.

In this appeal, Appellant Golden Marcel Roberson challenges his March 2017

convictions for aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and numerous other crimes

in connection with a vicious attack on his ex-girlfriend, Amanda Ziller. He also

challenges the trial court’s December 2024 amended order denying his motion for

new trial. However, due to the supersedeas effect of Appellant’s October 2024 notice

of appeal from the trial court’s initial order denying his new trial motion, the trial

court lacked jurisdiction in December 2024 to enter the amended order. Accordingly,

we vacate the trial court’s judgment, dismiss this appeal, and remand the case for

further proceedings without addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims. 1. The jury returned its verdicts on March 9, 2017, and the trial court entered

a judgment of conviction and sentence the next day. Appellant filed a motion for new

trial on March 16, 2017, which he amended with new counsel on June 28, 2019. On

August 19, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. Two years later, on

September 15, 2021, attorney F. Michael Starosto filed a notice of substitution of

counsel for Appellant. Another two-and-a-half years passed, and on April 8, 2024,

Starosto filed a second amended motion for new trial on Appellant’s behalf adding

claims that the trial court’s lengthy delay in ruling on his new trial motion violated his

right to due process, OCGA § 15-6-21(b), and Uniform Superior Court Rule 41.1.

On October 21, 2024, the trial court entered a lengthy order denying

Appellant’s motion for new trial. On October 25, 2024, Appellant filed a timely notice

of appeal, and the appeal was docketed in this Court as Case No. A25A0825. On

December 12, 2024, the trial court entered an amended order denying Appellant’s

motion for new trial, explaining in a footnote that the court had inadvertently failed

to address in its initial order the additional claims Appellant raised in his second

amended motion for new trial.

2 The record on appeal did not contain the trial court’s amended order, so on

December 26, 2024, Appellant filed a motion to remand the case to the trial court for

completion of the record. On February 5, 2025, this Court entered an order granting

Appellant’s motion to remand, striking Case No. A25A0825 from our docket, and

remanding the case to the trial court with direction to complete the record without

delay and to transmit the complete record and transcript to this Court for redocketing

upon the filing of a new notice of appeal by Appellant. The trial court completed the

record by including the amended order, and on May 22, 2025, Appellant filed a new

notice of appeal. The appeal was redocketed in this Court as Case No. A25A1915.

2. We have a duty to consider the issue of our jurisdiction in every case where

there may be any doubt as to its existence. See Patterson v. State, 321 Ga. 487, 487 (915

SE2d 555) (2025). The State contends that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal

because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order denying

Appellant’s motion for new trial. We agree with the State that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to enter the amended order.

Appellant’s October 25, 2024 notice of appeal from the October 21, 2024 order

acted as a supersedeas that deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to alter or amend

3 that order. See Blash v. State, 318 Ga. 325, 331(1)(b) (898 SE2d 522) (2024)

(recognizing “the general principle that the trial court is divested of jurisdiction to

alter the judgment or order appealed from” once a notice of appeal has been filed in

a criminal case (citation modified)). Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter

the amended order denying Appellant’s new trial motion on December 12, 2024, and

the amended order therefore was void. See Patterson, 321 Ga. at 488 (“The notice of

appeal acted as supersedeas and deprived the trial court of the power to affect the

judgment appealed, so that subsequent proceedings purporting to supplement, amend,

alter or modify the judgment, whether pursuant to statutory or inherent power, are

without effect.” (citation modified)). In this procedural posture, the proper course is

to vacate the trial court’s judgment, dismiss the appeal, and remand the case for

further proceedings. See id. at 489. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment,

dismiss this appeal, and remand the case to the trial court with direction to enter a new

order once this Court’s remittitur has been filed in the trial court.

Judgment vacated, appeal dismissed, and case remanded with direction. McFadden,

P. J., and Hodges, J., concur.