Troy Jermaine Jackson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 9, 2018
DocketA18D0237
StatusPublished

This text of Troy Jermaine Jackson v. State (Troy Jermaine Jackson 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
Troy Jermaine Jackson v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ January 09, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0237. TROY JERMAINE JACKSON v. THE STATE.

Troy Jermaine Jackson filed a pro se “Notice of Extraordinary Motion for New Trial” pursuant to OCGA § 5-5-41 (a).1 The trial court treated the notice as the motion itself2 and purported to deny it, finding that Jackson presented no “extraordinary state of facts” and “no grounds upon which to adjudge whether a new trial is warranted.” According to Jackson, the day after the trial court’s order was entered, he filed his extraordinary motion for new trial. He then filed this application for discretionary appeal, seeking review of the trial court’s order denying his “Notice.” Because Jackson’s extraordinary motion for new trial apparently remains pending below, the trial court’s order denying his “Notice” was not a final judgment. To obtain appellate review of that order, Jackson was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court. See Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App.

1 That Code Section provides, “When a motion for a new trial is made after the expiration of a 30 day period from the entry of judgment, some good reason must be shown why the motion was not made during such period, which reason shall be judged by the court. In all such cases, 20 days’ notice shall be given to the opposite party.” (Emphasis supplied.) 2 The notice merely explained that Jackson planned to file an extraordinary motion for new trial; it did not set forth the basis of the motion. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Jackson’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 01/09/2018 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

Lee v. Department of Transportation
380 S.E.2d 726 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Boyd v. State
383 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Troy Jermaine Jackson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-jermaine-jackson-v-state-gactapp-2018.