Roy Lee Smith v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 13, 2015
DocketA15D0201
StatusPublished

This text of Roy Lee Smith v. State (Roy Lee Smith 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
Roy Lee Smith v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ January 13, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0201. ROY LEE SMITH v. THE STATE.

Roy Lee Smith pled guilty in 2011 to false imprisonment, criminal damage to property in the second degree, and simple battery. In November of 2014, Smith filed a pro se discretionary application entitled “Mandamus” in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the document “simply seeks appellate review of decisions entered in his underlying criminal case,” and transferred the application to us after determining that the case did not invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. We, however, lack jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court noted, Smith appears to seek review of his 2011 plea. His application specifically argues that the trial court failed to inform him of the rights he relinquished by pleading guilty and erred in finding that his plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered. It does not appear from the record, however, that Smith filed a motion to withdraw his plea or otherwise sought an order regarding his claims in the trial court. As the applicant, Smith bears the burden of establishing that his application should be granted. See Harper v. Harper, 259 Ga. 246 (378 SE2d 673) (1989). Given the dearth of information he provided with his application, we are unable to assume jurisdiction. To be timely, an application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (d). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal or application is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Because Smith failed to file his application within 30 days after entry of the order he seeks to challenge, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this untimely application. The application is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 01/13/2015 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

Boyle v. State of Georgia
380 S.E.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Harper v. Harper
378 S.E.2d 673 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Roy Lee Smith v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-lee-smith-v-state-gactapp-2015.