Michael Lydon Strong v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 7, 2022
DocketA22D0307
StatusPublished

This text of Michael Lydon Strong v. State (Michael Lydon Strong 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
Michael Lydon Strong v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 07, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0307. MICHAEL LYDON STRONG v. THE STATE.

Michael Lydon Strong has been charged with aggravated stalking, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. Proceeding pro se, he filed in the trial court a motion for default judgment and a statutory speedy trial demand.1 In two orders, each issued on February 9, 2022, the trial court dismissed Strong’s motions. On March 21, 2022, Strong filed this application, seeking discretionary review of both orders. Because the application is untimely, we lack jurisdiction. Pretermitting whether a criminal defendant may seek default judgment, the trial court’s order denying Strong’s motion for default judgment is an interlocutory ruling, which generally requires a party to follow our interlocutory review procedure. See Ware v. Handy Storage, 222 Ga. App. 339, 339 (474 SE2d 240) (1996); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). In contrast, the trial court’s order dismissing Strong’s statutory speedy trial demand is directly appealable. See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694, 695- 696 (333 SE2d 827) (1985). Ordinarily, when a party seeks discretionary review of a directly appealable order, we grant the application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). To be granted an appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j), however, the application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d), (j). Here, Strong filed his application 40 days after the trial court’s orders were entered. His

1 In violation of Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e), Strong has not provided a copy of his motions with the application materials. application is therefore untimely and subject to dismissal. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 SE2d 617) (2012). Accordingly, Strong’s application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/07/2022 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

Related

Hubbard v. State
333 S.E.2d 827 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Ware v. Handy Storage
474 S.E.2d 240 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Crosson v. Conway
728 S.E.2d 617 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Lydon Strong v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-lydon-strong-v-state-gactapp-2022.