Jerry Lee Thomas, III v. City of Hinesville

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jerry Lee Thomas, III v. City of Hinesville

DecidedApril 27, 2022

DocketA22A1058

StatusPublished

This text of Jerry Lee Thomas, III v. City of Hinesville (Jerry Lee Thomas, III v. City of Hinesville) 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

Jerry Lee Thomas, III v. City of Hinesville, (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 27, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1058. JERRY LEE THOMAS, III v. CITY OF HINESVILLE.

Jerry Lee Thomas, III was charged by the City of Hinesville with several traffic offenses. Prior to trial in the Municipal Court of Hinesville, Thomas filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The case proceeded to trial, which resulted in Thomas’s conviction on all charges. The trial court then denied Thomas’s motion to dismiss, finding that personal and subject matter jurisdiction had been proven at trial. After the municipal court denied Thomas’s motion to vacate both the ruling denying his motion to dismiss and his conviction, Thomas filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Liberty County. The superior court affirmed the finding of jurisdiction and Thomas’s conviction. Thomas then filed the current appeal in this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), “[a]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of . . . lower courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings” must be made by filing an application for discretionary appeal in this Court. See Consolidated Govt. of Columbus v. Barwick, 274 Ga. 176, 177 (1) (549 SE2d 73) (2001). And where a discretionary application is required, failure to comply with that requirement deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021). Given Thomas’s failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/27/2022 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,____________________ April 27, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1058. JERRY LEE THOMAS, III v. CITY OF HINESVILLE.

Jerry Lee Thomas, III was charged by the City of Hinesville with several traffic offenses. Prior to trial in the Municipal Court of Hinesville, Thomas filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The case proceeded to trial, which resulted in Thomas’s conviction on all charges. The trial court then denied Thomas’s motion to dismiss, finding that personal and subject matter jurisdiction had been proven at trial. After the municipal court denied Thomas’s motion to vacate both the ruling denying his motion to dismiss and his conviction, Thomas filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Liberty County. The superior court affirmed the finding of jurisdiction and Thomas’s conviction. Thomas then filed the current appeal in this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), “[a]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of . . . lower courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings” must be made by filing an application for discretionary appeal in this Court. See Consolidated Govt. of Columbus v. Barwick, 274 Ga. 176, 177 (1) (549 SE2d 73) (2001). And where a discretionary application is required, failure to comply with that requirement deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021). Given Thomas’s failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/27/2022 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)

Jerry Lee Thomas, III v. City of Hinesville, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerry-lee-thomas-iii-v-city-of-hinesville-gactapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack