Jarred Mark Porter v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 6, 2023
DocketA23A0163
StatusPublished

This text of Jarred Mark Porter v. State (Jarred Mark Porter 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
Jarred Mark Porter v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

THIRD DIVISION BARNES, P. J., DOYLE, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS

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 6, 2023

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A22A1719, A23A0163. PORTER v. THE STATE (two cases).

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

A Monroe County jury found Jarred Porter guilty of fleeing or attempting to

elude a police officer and speeding.1 For the reasons set forth infra, we dismiss these

appeals as premature because Porter has a pending motion for arrest in

judgment/motion for new trial in the trial court.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,2 the record shows the

following. In 2020, a deputy with the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office was

conducting traffic enforcement on I-75. The deputy was in uniform parked in his

marked patrol car on the shoulder of the highway. The posted speed limit was 70

1 See OCGA §§ 40-6-395 (a), (b) (5) (A) (2020); 40-6-181. 2 See Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704, 705 (606 SE2d 269) (2004). miles per hour. The deputy observed a man, later identified as Porter, on a motorcycle

traveling above the speed limit. The deputy measured Porter’s speed at 92 miles per

hour using a speed detection device. The deputy positioned his patrol car behind the

motorcycle, activated his lights and sirens, and attempted to initiate a traffic stop.

Porter initially slowed down, but then sped off at a high rate of speed. The

deputy pursued Porter as Porter weaved in and out of traffic. The deputy measured

Porter’s speed during the chase as “well above a hundred miles per hour[,]” with

Porter at one point reaching 170 miles per hour. Porter eventually exited the highway

and entered a residential area. A corporal positioned himself at an intersection ahead

of Porter and pointed his rifle at Porter. Porter stopped at the intersection, and officers

took him into custody.

Following the chase, the deputy obtained an arrest warrant for Porter for

fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. The affidavit for the arrest warrant

listed the date and time of the chase as October 2, 2020, at 2:00 a.m. to October 3,

2020, at 7:00 p.m. The deputy at trial testified that the chase actually started at 2:00

p.m. on October 2, 2020, and did not last into the next day. The deputy testified that

he mistakenly clicked 2:00 a.m. instead of 2:00 p.m., and that the arrest warrant

automatically populated a twenty-four hour time span.

2 Porter was indicted for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and

speeding. The jury found him guilty of both counts. Porter filed a notice of appeal

directly from his conviction, and this appeal followed.

Case No. A22A1719

1. Porter argues that the trial court failed to rule on his motion in arrest of

judgment.

After his conviction, but before his notice of appeal, Porter filed a “motion for

declaration of mistrial and void judgment and dismissal of all charges arising out of

the false October 2, 2020 affidavit [from the deputy]” and an “amended and corrected

motion for declaration of mistrial and void judgment, to arrest judgment, and to

vacate conviction of count one of the indictment that arose out of the false October

3, 2020 affidavit of [the deputy] by which both the arrest warrant and indictment were

obtained[.]”

In the motion, Porter argued that the deputy knowingly presented false

testimony in the arrest affidavit, and, as a result, the arrest warrant, indictment,

conviction, and sentence were all unlawful. Porter also argued that the trial court

made an inappropriate statement regarding defense counsel’s strategy, and that this

statement was prejudicial and harmful.

3 As an initial matter, at least part of this motion should not be construed as a

motion in arrest of judgment. “[C]ourts are not bound by the designation given

motions by the parties[,] and . . . we look to substance over nomenclature.”3 A motion

for an arrest in judgment is “for any defect not amendable which appears on the face

of the record or pleadings[,]”4 and is typically utilized as a post-judgment motion to

attack the sufficiency of the indictment.5 Here, Porter challenged, among other things,

the trial court’s statement as prejudicial and harmful, which was not a defect on the

face of the record or pleadings and such an argument is typically raised in a motion

for new trial.6

Porter later withdrew that claim, but requested a ruling regarding his other

argument that the arrest warrant, indictment, conviction, and sentence were all

3 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kilgore v. State, 325 Ga. App. 874, 874 (1) (756 SE2d 9) (2014). 4 OCGA § 17-9-61 (a). 5 See, e.g., Ashmore v. State, 323 Ga. App. 329, 332-333 (2) (746 SE2d 927) (2013). 6 See Boyd v. State, 267 Ga. 453, 454 n.1 & 456 (3) (479 SE2d 724) (1997) (considering, on appeal from a motion for new trial, whether the trial court’s statements harmed the defendant’s right to a fair trial); see also OCGA § 17-8-57 (c) (“Should any judge express an opinion as to the guilt of the accused, . . . the trial court in a motion for a new trial shall grant a new trial.”).

4 unlawful due to the allegedly knowing false statement by the deputy. Still, whether

construed as a motion for new trial or a motion in arrest of judgment, the motion was

timely because it was filed within 30 days of the judgment and within the same term

of court.7 And both motions for new trial and motions in arrest of judgment are

resetting post-judgment motions under OCGA § 5-6-38 (a).8

Because the motion remains pending in the trial court, we lack jurisdiction over

his appeals.9 “If the motion . . . is denied, the judgment from which [Porter] seeks to

7 See OCGA § 5-5-40 (a) (providing that a motion for new trial should be filed within 30 days of the judgment); OCGA § 17-9-61 (b) (providing that a motion in arrest of judgment must be filed within the same term of court of the judgment). The trial court entered its judgment on March 30, 2022, and Porter filed his motion on April 1, 2022, which is in the same term of court for Monroe County. See OCGA § 15-6-3 (40.1) (C) (providing for terms of court beginning on the “[s]econd Monday in February, May, August, and November”). 8 See OCGA § 5-6-38

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

Related

Rankin v. State
606 S.E.2d 269 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004)
Boyd v. State
479 S.E.2d 724 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Garcia v. State
620 S.E.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Ashmore v. State
746 S.E.2d 927 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)
Kilgore v. State
756 S.E.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)
Jackson v. State
850 S.E.2d 131 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jarred Mark Porter v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarred-mark-porter-v-state-gactapp-2023.