Willie Holland v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willie Holland v. State

DecidedJune 2, 2016

DocketA16A1742

StatusPublished

This text of Willie Holland v. State (Willie Holland 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

Willie Holland v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 02, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1742. WILLIE HOLLAND v. THE STATE.

In 2003, a jury convicted Willie Holland of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. A month later, a jury found Holland guilty of one count of aggravated assault on a peace officer, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of heroin. After the grant of an out-of-time appeal, Holland’s convictions were affirmed by this Court. See Holland v. State, Case No. A05A0765 (decided April 6, 2005). In 2011, Holland, acting pro se, filed a “Motion to Amend Defaulted Ruling on a Void Judgment,” and in 2013, he filed an amended motion. The trial court denied the motion on August 21, 2013. Holland subsequently filed this direct appeal on November 7, 2013. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Holland filed his notice of appeal 78 days after entry of the trial court’s order, his appeal is untimely.1 Accordingly, this untimely appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The State’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED as moot.

1 Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Holland is not authorized to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 06/02/2016 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 02, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1742. WILLIE HOLLAND v. THE STATE.

In 2003, a jury convicted Willie Holland of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. A month later, a jury found Holland guilty of one count of aggravated assault on a peace officer, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of heroin. After the grant of an out-of-time appeal, Holland’s convictions were affirmed by this Court. See Holland v. State, Case No. A05A0765 (decided April 6, 2005). In 2011, Holland, acting pro se, filed a “Motion to Amend Defaulted Ruling on a Void Judgment,” and in 2013, he filed an amended motion. The trial court denied the motion on August 21, 2013. Holland subsequently filed this direct appeal on November 7, 2013. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Holland filed his notice of appeal 78 days after entry of the trial court’s order, his appeal is untimely.1 Accordingly, this untimely appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The State’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED as moot.

1 Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Holland is not authorized to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 06/02/2016 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Willie Holland v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-holland-v-state-gactapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack