Moses Delano Ross v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 27, 2017
DocketA17D0369
StatusPublished

This text of Moses Delano Ross v. State (Moses Delano Ross 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
Moses Delano Ross v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 14, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0369. MOSES DELANO ROSS v. THE STATE.

Moses Delano Ross filed a motion to dismiss this case based on issues regarding the applicable statute of limitation. The trial court denied his motion. Ross then filed a document entitled “Pro Se Objections Production to Resolve” stemming from the denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial court construed this filing as a motion, which it denied, and Ross filed this application for discretionary appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. “Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas County, 217 Ga. App. 520 (457 SE2d 835) (1995). Here, it is clear from the trial court’s order that the case remains pending below and the order Ross seeks to appeal is not a final order. Thus, Ross was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review signed and entered by the trial court, to appeal the order he included with his application materials. See Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Although Ross filed a discretionary application, “[t]he discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6- 34 (b).” Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). Ross’s application for discretionary appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/14/2017 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

Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Boyd v. State
383 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Thomas v. Douglas County
457 S.E.2d 835 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moses Delano Ross v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-delano-ross-v-state-gactapp-2017.