Riley Hadfield v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 2, 2024
DocketA24I0245
StatusPublished

This text of Riley Hadfield v. State (Riley Hadfield 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
Riley Hadfield v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ July 02, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24I0245. RILEY HADFIELD v. THE STATE

Riley Hadfield seeks interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress. The trial court’s order was filed on June 3, 2024, and the certificate of immediate review was filed on June 20, 2024. We lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review should be had. A timely certificate of immediate review is a jurisdictional requirement. See Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 23, 24 (2) (209 SE2d 715) (1974). If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until final judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 178 (3) (a) (829 SE2d 348) (2019), citing Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 175 (200 SE2d 748) (1973). The Supreme Court has interpreted “entered” to mean “filed with the clerk of the trial court.” Turner, supra. Here, although the certificate of immediate review was signed on June 10, it was not entered until June 20 — 17 days after entry of the order denying the motion to suppress. Thus, the certificate of immediate review is untimely. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga. App. 687 (204 SE2d 317) (1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or interlocutory judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within ten days after entry of the judgment appealed from.”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 07/02/2024 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

Turner v. Harper
200 S.E.2d 748 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc.
209 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Schallern v. Stanco
204 S.E.2d 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Duke v. State
829 S.E.2d 348 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
Duke v. State
306 Ga. 171 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Riley Hadfield v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-hadfield-v-state-gactapp-2024.