Pierce v. State

911 S.E.2d 627, 320 Ga. 692

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: S24A1276
• Status: Published

Opinion

320 Ga. 692 FINAL COPY

S24A1276. PIERCE v. THE STATE.

BETHEL, Justice.

The trial court entered a bill of peace purporting to restrain

Jason Pierce’s filings in this pending criminal action, nine pending

civil actions, and new civil filings related “in any way to the subject

matter of any of the [nine pending] suits[.]” Pierce moved the trial

court to vacate the bill of peace in his criminal case, challenging the

propriety of its entry in a criminal matter. The trial court vacated

the bill of peace with respect to the criminal case. Pierce now appeals

from this favorable disposition arguing that the trial court erred by

failing to grant him the additional relief of vacating the bill of peace

with respect to the pending and prospective civil cases referenced

therein. Because the record shows that Pierce failed to request below

the relief he now claims he was entitled to, that question is not

preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm.

In 2013, Pierce pleaded guilty to malice murder in connection with the 1999 shooting deaths of Patrice Lassiter and Monique

Brown.1 In the intervening years, Pierce, acting pro se, repeatedly

filed post-conviction motions in the trial court seeking to challenge

his convictions and sentences, none of which proved fruitful. In

addition, Pierce has filed, or attempted to file, multiple civil suits

against the judges and the clerk of superior court involved in his

criminal case, as well as various wardens of the prisons in which he

has been incarcerated. Pierce likewise sought to appeal to this Court

the unfavorable disposition of many of these post-conviction motions

and civil suits, causing the voluminous case record to be transmitted

to this Court at least four times. In 2018, after Pierce initiated a

mandamus action against the clerk of the trial court seeking to

compel the clerk to transmit the case record to this Court a fifth

1 We have previously detailed the complex procedural history predating

the entry of Pierce’s 2013 guilty plea. See Pierce v. State, 294 Ga. 842 (755 SE2d 732) (2014) (affirming denial of Pierce’s plea in bar based on double jeopardy); Pierce v. State, 289 Ga. 893 (717 SE2d 202) (2011) (reversing denial of motion to vacate void and illegal sentence and vacating sentences for malice murder convictions). 2 time, the trial court, acting pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-110,2 entered

the bill of peace. Pierce was ordered not to file anything further in

the cases referenced in the bill of peace, nor to file any new petition,

complaint, motion, or action against any party named in the bill of

peace without the trial court’s prior approval.3 In February 2022,

Pierce, acting through counsel, moved to vacate the bill of peace as

it applied to his criminal case, arguing that the trial court was

without jurisdiction to enter a bill of peace in a criminal case. In a

January 2023 order, the trial court vacated the bill of peace as it

applied to Pierce’s criminal case but emphasized that the bill of

peace “remains in effect for the other cases . . . and any future

petitions[.]” Pierce now appeals.4

On appeal, Pierce asserts for the first time that the trial court

2 OCGA § 23-3-110 provides: “It being in the interest of this state that

there shall be an end of litigation, equity will entertain a bill of peace . . . [t]o avoid a multiplicity of actions by establishing a right, in favor of or against several persons, which is likely to be the subject of legal controversy[.]” 3 Pierce subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court seeking

review of the bill of peace, but the appeal was dismissed for Pierce’s failure to file a brief. See Case No. S19A0184 (dismissed Jan. 8, 2019). 4 Pierce filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 2023

order, but the record was not received by this Court until July 2024. 3 erred in entering a bill of peace as to the various civil actions

referenced in the bill of peace, as well as any future civil actions that

Pierce might file. But our review of the record shows — and Pierce

makes no argument to the contrary — that Pierce sought vacatur of

the bill of peace only in connection with his criminal case and did

not challenge the bill of peace with respect to the civil actions.

Because Pierce failed to raise this issue in the trial court below and

to obtain a ruling on it, his claim is not preserved for appellate

review by this Court. See Clay v. State, 309 Ga. 593, 594 (1) (847

SE2d 530) (2020).5 Accordingly, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

5 Pierce has not asserted that plain error review applies for this type of

unpreserved error and, indeed, we have not found any case in which plain error review has been applied in a challenge to the scope of a bill of peace. 4 Decided January 28, 2025.

Bill of peace. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Schwall.

Stephen M. Reba, for appellant.

Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Kevin C. Armstrong, Assistant

District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Beth A.

Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Clint C. Malcolm, Matthew B.

Crowder, Meghan H. Hill, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, for

appellee.