Stefon Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stefon Smith v. State

DecidedDecember 30, 2024

DocketA25A0755

StatusPublished

This text of Stefon Smith v. State (Stefon 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

Stefon Smith v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 30, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0755. STEFON SMITH v. THE STATE.

Stefon Smith was indicted for aggravated child molestation and other related offenses. Smith filed several pro se motions, which the trial court construed as an invocation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing and Smith filed a direct appeal. The State subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35, 40 (2) (734 SE2d 362) (2012), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a defendant has no right to a direct appeal from the denial of a pretrial constitutional speedy trial motion. Instead, a defendant wishing to appeal the denial of a motion for acquittal based on a constitutional speedy trial violation must comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id.; Johnson v. State, 300 Ga. 252, 257 (3) (794 SE2d 60) (2016).1 Those procedures include timely seeking a certificate of immediate review in the superior court and thereafter filing an application for an interlocutory appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). And where, as here, the interlocutory appeal requirements apply, the failure to comply with those procedures deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See Gresham v. State, 350 Ga. App. 243, 243 (828 SE2d 634) (2019). Here, Smith’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures

1 In contrast, denials of statutory speedy trial claims are directly appealable. See id. deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Thus, the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/30/2024 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 30, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0755. STEFON SMITH v. THE STATE.

Stefon Smith was indicted for aggravated child molestation and other related offenses. Smith filed several pro se motions, which the trial court construed as an invocation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing and Smith filed a direct appeal. The State subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35, 40 (2) (734 SE2d 362) (2012), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a defendant has no right to a direct appeal from the denial of a pretrial constitutional speedy trial motion. Instead, a defendant wishing to appeal the denial of a motion for acquittal based on a constitutional speedy trial violation must comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id.; Johnson v. State, 300 Ga. 252, 257 (3) (794 SE2d 60) (2016).1 Those procedures include timely seeking a certificate of immediate review in the superior court and thereafter filing an application for an interlocutory appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). And where, as here, the interlocutory appeal requirements apply, the failure to comply with those procedures deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See Gresham v. State, 350 Ga. App. 243, 243 (828 SE2d 634) (2019). Here, Smith’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures

1 In contrast, denials of statutory speedy trial claims are directly appealable. See id. deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Thus, the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/30/2024 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stefon Smith v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stefon-smith-v-state-gactapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack