Henry Louis Dobbs v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henry Louis Dobbs v. State

DecidedSeptember 9, 2016

DocketA17D0010

StatusPublished

This text of Henry Louis Dobbs v. State (Henry Louis Dobbs 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

Henry Louis Dobbs v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 30, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0010. HENRY LOUIS DOBBS v. THE STATE.

Henry Louis Dobbs pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He later filed a “Motion for Intent for Mandamus,” in which he “put [the trial court] on notice of his intent to file a mandamus” if the court did not rule on his pending extraordinary motion for new trial “within a reasonable time.” The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was “advisory in nature as to [Dobbs’s] contemplated future action and as such d[id] not present a current justiciable controversy.” Dobbs filed an application for discretionary appeal of that ruling in the Supreme Court, which transferred the matter here. “A controversy is justiciable when it is appropriate for judicial determination. It must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, rather than being hypothetical, abstract, academic or moot.” Carlock v. Kmart Corp., 227 Ga. App. 356, 361 (3) (a) (489 SE2d 99) (1997) (punctuation omitted). Here, Dobbs’s motion did not seek any relief from the trial court; it merely informed the court that he might seek mandamus relief in the future. Accordingly, this application raises only hypothetical questions and does not involve any actual controversy. “We are a court for the correction of errors, however, and are not authorized to issue an advisory opinion about a potential error a trial court may make in the future.” Wright v. Waterberg &c., 330 Ga. App. 508, 512 (4) (767 SE2d 513) (2014); see also Dempsey v. Gwinnett Hosp. System, 330 Ga. App. 469, 475 (3) (765 SE2d 525) (2014) (dismissing appeal that sought advisory opinion). This application is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 08/30/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 30, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0010. HENRY LOUIS DOBBS v. THE STATE.

Henry Louis Dobbs pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He later filed a “Motion for Intent for Mandamus,” in which he “put [the trial court] on notice of his intent to file a mandamus” if the court did not rule on his pending extraordinary motion for new trial “within a reasonable time.” The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was “advisory in nature as to [Dobbs’s] contemplated future action and as such d[id] not present a current justiciable controversy.” Dobbs filed an application for discretionary appeal of that ruling in the Supreme Court, which transferred the matter here. “A controversy is justiciable when it is appropriate for judicial determination. It must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, rather than being hypothetical, abstract, academic or moot.” Carlock v. Kmart Corp., 227 Ga. App. 356, 361 (3) (a) (489 SE2d 99) (1997) (punctuation omitted). Here, Dobbs’s motion did not seek any relief from the trial court; it merely informed the court that he might seek mandamus relief in the future. Accordingly, this application raises only hypothetical questions and does not involve any actual controversy. “We are a court for the correction of errors, however, and are not authorized to issue an advisory opinion about a potential error a trial court may make in the future.” Wright v. Waterberg &c., 330 Ga. App. 508, 512 (4) (767 SE2d 513) (2014); see also Dempsey v. Gwinnett Hosp. System, 330 Ga. App. 469, 475 (3) (765 SE2d 525) (2014) (dismissing appeal that sought advisory opinion). This application is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 08/30/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Henry Louis Dobbs v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-louis-dobbs-v-state-gactapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack