HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that appellants Juanita Hicks and Geneva Blanton, in their respective individual capacities as Clerk of the Superior Court of Fulton County and an employee in that office, were not entitled to official immunity for their actions in regard to OCGA § 42-5-50 (a) (requiring the clerk of the court to notify the commissioner of the Department of Corrections of a sentence within 30 working days following the receipt of the sentence), as to the suit brought against them by appellee Calvin McGee, a prisoner who was incarcerated 22 months past his release date due to appellants’ failure to comply with the statute. See
McGee v. Hicks,
303 Ga. App. 130 (693 SE2d 130) (2010)
(“Hicks IF’).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that appellants were not entitled to official immunity although we disapprove that court’s holding to the extent that it was based upon the law of the case doctrine.
The record reveals that the trial judge in the criminal case of “State of Georgia v. Calvin McGee” signed a one-page document entitled “amended order” that changed McGee’s sentence to provide
for a May 27, 2001 maximum release date, rather than the June 27, 2003 maximum release date to which he had previously been sentenced. By its plain language this order modified McGee’s criminal sentence by reducing the maximum amount of time he was required to be incarcerated.
On July 20, 2000, appellant Blanton accepted this order for filing in the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk’s Office (“FCSCCO”), signed the order in as “received” and placed it elsewhere for processing. It is uncontroverted that Blanton neither read the order nor had received any training that would have aided her in recognizing the order as a sentencing order.
It is also uncontroverted that appellant Hicks did not notify the commissioner of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) of this order following the receipt of the sentence on July 20, 2000 as required by OCGA § 42-5-50 (a). McGee was not released from prison until March 2003, which was 22 months past the release date set by the trial judge in the order.
McGee filed suit against appellants in October 2003, contending that they breached their duty imposed by OCGA § 42-5-50 (a) to notify the DOC of his amended sentence. The Court of Appeals, in
Hicks v. McGee,
283 Ga. App. 678 (642 SE2d 379) (2007)
("Hicks
I”), in pertinent part affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss McGee’s claim against them in their individual capacities. Id. at 680 (2) (b); see Division 2, infra. The trial court thereafter granted appellants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that they were entitled to official immunity as a matter of law because
the original Order contained no language indicating that the Order was a reduction or modification of a sentence, the Order was not accompanied by a final disposition form and
the Order did not direct the Clerk of the court to send notification to the Department of Corrections for a sentencing reduction. Therefore, the clerk of the Court performed her duties as she was trained to do with any type of non-sentencing Order. Neither of the [appellants] breached their ministerial duties.
The Court of Appeals in
Hicks II,
supra, reversed.
1. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court erred when it found that appellants did not breach the ministerial duty imposed upon them by OCGA § 42-5-50 (a).* 123
A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty. A discretionary act, however, calls for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment, which in turn entails
examining the facts, reaching reasoned conclusions, and acting on them in a way not specifically directed. [Cit.]
McDowell v.
Smith, 285 Ga. 592, 593 (678 SE2d 922) (2009). Whether the act of a public official is ministerial or discretionary is determined by the facts of each individual case.
Nelson v. Spalding County,
249 Ga. 334 (2) (a) (290 SE2d 915) (1982). See also
Meagher v. Quick,
264 Ga. App. 639 (1) (594 SE2d 182) (2003).
The trial court found that appellants did not breach the ministerial duties imposed by OCGA § 42-5-50 because they properly treated the amended order as a “type of non-sentencing Order.” The record, however, directly belies the trial court’s finding that the order contained no language indicating that it was a reduction or modification of a sentence.
Nor does OCGA § 42-5-50 (a) excuse clerks of the courts from complying with the duties it imposes in those situations when trial judges do not attach final disposition forms to their sentencing orders
or do not include language in the sentence directing the clerk of the court to comply with the duty OCGA § 42-5-50 imposes solely upon the clerk. As the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, OCGA § 42-5-50 “does not provide that the clerk shall forward amended sentences to the DOC only if they are filed in a particular form using particular language.”
Hicks II,
supra, 303 Ga. App. at 133.
Relying on
Grammens v. Dollar,
287 Ga. 618 (697 SE2d 775) (2010), appellants assert that their statutory duty to forward sentencing orders to the DOC involved discretion because OCGA § 42-5-50 requires them “to decide whether the condition that was the necessary prerequisite to the ministerial act existed.”
Grammens,
supra at 620.
Grammens
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that appellants Juanita Hicks and Geneva Blanton, in their respective individual capacities as Clerk of the Superior Court of Fulton County and an employee in that office, were not entitled to official immunity for their actions in regard to OCGA § 42-5-50 (a) (requiring the clerk of the court to notify the commissioner of the Department of Corrections of a sentence within 30 working days following the receipt of the sentence), as to the suit brought against them by appellee Calvin McGee, a prisoner who was incarcerated 22 months past his release date due to appellants’ failure to comply with the statute. See
McGee v. Hicks,
303 Ga. App. 130 (693 SE2d 130) (2010)
(“Hicks IF’).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that appellants were not entitled to official immunity although we disapprove that court’s holding to the extent that it was based upon the law of the case doctrine.
The record reveals that the trial judge in the criminal case of “State of Georgia v. Calvin McGee” signed a one-page document entitled “amended order” that changed McGee’s sentence to provide
for a May 27, 2001 maximum release date, rather than the June 27, 2003 maximum release date to which he had previously been sentenced. By its plain language this order modified McGee’s criminal sentence by reducing the maximum amount of time he was required to be incarcerated.
On July 20, 2000, appellant Blanton accepted this order for filing in the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk’s Office (“FCSCCO”), signed the order in as “received” and placed it elsewhere for processing. It is uncontroverted that Blanton neither read the order nor had received any training that would have aided her in recognizing the order as a sentencing order.
It is also uncontroverted that appellant Hicks did not notify the commissioner of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) of this order following the receipt of the sentence on July 20, 2000 as required by OCGA § 42-5-50 (a). McGee was not released from prison until March 2003, which was 22 months past the release date set by the trial judge in the order.
McGee filed suit against appellants in October 2003, contending that they breached their duty imposed by OCGA § 42-5-50 (a) to notify the DOC of his amended sentence. The Court of Appeals, in
Hicks v. McGee,
283 Ga. App. 678 (642 SE2d 379) (2007)
("Hicks
I”), in pertinent part affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss McGee’s claim against them in their individual capacities. Id. at 680 (2) (b); see Division 2, infra. The trial court thereafter granted appellants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that they were entitled to official immunity as a matter of law because
the original Order contained no language indicating that the Order was a reduction or modification of a sentence, the Order was not accompanied by a final disposition form and
the Order did not direct the Clerk of the court to send notification to the Department of Corrections for a sentencing reduction. Therefore, the clerk of the Court performed her duties as she was trained to do with any type of non-sentencing Order. Neither of the [appellants] breached their ministerial duties.
The Court of Appeals in
Hicks II,
supra, reversed.
1. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court erred when it found that appellants did not breach the ministerial duty imposed upon them by OCGA § 42-5-50 (a).* 123
A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty. A discretionary act, however, calls for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment, which in turn entails
examining the facts, reaching reasoned conclusions, and acting on them in a way not specifically directed. [Cit.]
McDowell v.
Smith, 285 Ga. 592, 593 (678 SE2d 922) (2009). Whether the act of a public official is ministerial or discretionary is determined by the facts of each individual case.
Nelson v. Spalding County,
249 Ga. 334 (2) (a) (290 SE2d 915) (1982). See also
Meagher v. Quick,
264 Ga. App. 639 (1) (594 SE2d 182) (2003).
The trial court found that appellants did not breach the ministerial duties imposed by OCGA § 42-5-50 because they properly treated the amended order as a “type of non-sentencing Order.” The record, however, directly belies the trial court’s finding that the order contained no language indicating that it was a reduction or modification of a sentence.
Nor does OCGA § 42-5-50 (a) excuse clerks of the courts from complying with the duties it imposes in those situations when trial judges do not attach final disposition forms to their sentencing orders
or do not include language in the sentence directing the clerk of the court to comply with the duty OCGA § 42-5-50 imposes solely upon the clerk. As the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, OCGA § 42-5-50 “does not provide that the clerk shall forward amended sentences to the DOC only if they are filed in a particular form using particular language.”
Hicks II,
supra, 303 Ga. App. at 133.
Relying on
Grammens v. Dollar,
287 Ga. 618 (697 SE2d 775) (2010), appellants assert that their statutory duty to forward sentencing orders to the DOC involved discretion because OCGA § 42-5-50 requires them “to decide whether the condition that was the necessary prerequisite to the ministerial act existed.”
Grammens,
supra at 620.
Grammens
involved a school policy requiring that students wear eye protection when performing experiments involving “explosive materials.” A majority of the Court held that the duty imposed by this policy was discretionary because it required teachers to first make the decision whether or not an experiment actually involved explosive materials before mandating the ministerial act of
requiring eye protection for those students performing the experiment.
Appellants assert that
Grammens
applies here, reasoning that they had to decide whether or not the amended order was a sentence and that this discretionary decision was the “necessary prerequisite” to the ministerial act of forwarding a sentence to the DOC. We do not agree.
The amended order unambiguously involved a criminal defendant’s sentence whether or not appellants recognized it as such. In other words, there was no discretion placed in appellants to decide that the order was
not
a sentencing order contrary to its plain terms. The fact that appellants failed to recognize it as a sentencing order cannot serve to change the nature of the order in any manner. Nor did their lack of recognition render discretionary appellants’ mandatory duty to notify the DOC of the new sentence in McGee’s case within 30 working days following their July 20, 2000 receipt thereof.
That lack of recognition instead may evidence only the negligent performance of the simple, absolute and definite act imposed on appellants by OCGA § 42-5-50 to notify the DOC of a sentence within 30 working days following the condition proven here to exist, i.e., the receipt of a sentence affecting appellee McGee. See
McDowell v. Smith,
supra, 285 Ga. at 593.
Therefore, because the specific actions mandated by OCGA § 42-5-50 are ministerial and were unambiguously triggered by the amended order, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that they are not within the scope of official immunity and reversed the trial court’s ruling to the contrary.
2. We also granted certiorari to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the law of the case rule in this matter.
Under the “law of the case” rule, any ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, as the
case may be.. . . Georgia’s appellate courts are required to adhere to the law of the case rule in all matters which they consider. Even where the law subsequently changes, appellate rulings remain binding as between parties to a case, so long as the evidentiary posture of the case remains unchanged, despite all contentions that prior rulings in the matter are erroneous.
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted.)
Security Life Ins. Co. v. Clark,
273 Ga. 44, 46 (1) (535 SE2d 234) (2000).
The ruling at issue in
Hicks I
was the denial of a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). Pertinent to this appeal, appellants in
Hicks I
claimed “that they are entitled to official immunity as a matter of law
because McGee failed to specifically allege
that they negligently performed a ministerial act.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Hicks I,
supra, 283 Ga. App. at 680 (2) (b).
The
Hicks I
court disagreed with this argument based upon its construction of McGee’s complaint in the light most favorable to him. Id. Although the Court of Appeals initially synopsized its holding by stating that the trial court “should deny [appellants’] motion to dismiss McGee’s claims against them in their individual capacities because those claims are not barred by the doctrine of official immunity,” id. at 678, a review of the actual holding reveals that the
Hicks I
court never resolved the issue whether appellants’ acts were ministerial or discretionary. Rather, it merely recognized that, in the factual allegations of his complaint, “it is clear that
McGee is asserting that
[appellants] failed to perform the ministerial act of communicating his sentence to the Department of Corrections.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 680 (2) (b). It thus appears that the
Hicks II
court erred when it stated that this quote — minus the emphasized language — represented the holding of
Hicks I.
See
Hicks II,
supra, 303 Ga. App. at 132. Rather, the
Hicks I
opinion is clear that the court itself did not issue a ruling as to whether or not McGee’s assertion in this regard was correct.
Without an express ruling on the [official] immunity issue in
[Hicks I\,
the law of the case rule as articulated in OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) is inapplicable here. OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (“any
ruling
by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be”) (emphasis supplied);
see also
Parks v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.,
238 Ga. App. 814, 815 (1) (520 SE2d 494) (1999) (law of the case rule “applies only to actual decisions, not to issues raised by the parties but never ruled upon”) (emphasis in original).
Decided July 5, 2011
Reconsideration denied July 21, 2011.
Y. Soo Jo, Robert D. Ware, Kaye W. Burwell,
for appellants.
Goldberg & Cuvillier, Ralph S. Goldberg,
for appellee.
Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept.,
285 Ga. 184, 186, fn. 5 (674 SE2d 894) (2009). The Court of Appeals erred by “expanding] the law of the case rule of OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) to encompass an ‘implied’ ruling on an ‘implied’ finding of a waiver of [official] immunity in
[Hicks
2] when the issue of [official] immunity simply was not addressed in
[Hicks
2].” Id. We accordingly disapprove its holding in this regard.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.