Katia Sevilla-Carcamo v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 13, 2015
DocketA15I0135
StatusPublished

This text of Katia Sevilla-Carcamo v. State (Katia Sevilla-Carcamo 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
Katia Sevilla-Carcamo v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 13, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15I0135. KATIA SEVILLA-CARCAMO v. THE STATE.

Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Warren Davis entered an order denying

Katia Sevilla-Carcamo’s motion to suppress. Sevilla-Carcamo obtained a certificate

of immediate review signed by a different judge sitting “by designation” and filed this

application for interlocutory appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may apply for interlocutory appellate review

“[w]here the trial judge in rendering an order, decision, or judgment, not otherwise

subject to direct appeal . . . certifies within ten days of entry thereof that the order,

decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that immediate review should

be had.” (Emphasis supplied.) The plain language of the statute requires that the

same judge who enters the order in question must certify it for immediate review.1

1 This Court has recognized a limited exception to this rule where evidence shows that the trial judge was unavailable to execute the certificate. See Freemon v. Dubroca, 177 Ga. App. 745 (1) (341 SE2d 276) (1986); Tingle v. Harvill, 125 Ga. App. 312, 317-318 (2) (187 SE2d 536) (1972); see also Thorpe v. Russell, 274 Ga. 781, 781-782 (559 SE2d 432) (2002). Sevilla-Carcamo, however, has made no showing that Judge Davis was unavailable. See Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLC, 306 Ga. App. 160, 162 (701 SE2d 599) (2010).

Because the certificate of immediate review submitted by Sevilla-Carcamo is

invalid, it does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Accordingly, the application

for interlocutory appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 03/13/2015 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

Related

Freemon v. Dubroca
341 S.E.2d 276 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Tingle v. Harvill
187 S.E.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLC
701 S.E.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Thorpe v. Russell
559 S.E.2d 432 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Katia Sevilla-Carcamo v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katia-sevilla-carcamo-v-state-gactapp-2015.