WARE v. WHITFIELD SUPERIOR COURT, A18D0232. (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Number: ingaco20180111215
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2018
Summary: Order On August 11, 2017, the superior court entered an order denying filing of a mandamus petition submitted by prisoner Jarvis Ware. 1 Ware filed an application for discretionary appeal on November 6, 2017. 2 We lack jurisdiction. To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance th
Summary: Order On August 11, 2017, the superior court entered an order denying filing of a mandamus petition submitted by prisoner Jarvis Ware. 1 Ware filed an application for discretionary appeal on November 6, 2017. 2 We lack jurisdiction. To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance the..
More
Order
On August 11, 2017, the superior court entered an order denying filing of a mandamus petition submitted by prisoner Jarvis Ware.1 Ware filed an application for discretionary appeal on November 6, 2017.2 We lack jurisdiction.
To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989). Because this application was filed 87 days after entry of the order Ware seeks to appeal, it is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.
FootNotes
1. The order contains a scrivener's error. Although the caption of the order suggests it is an order denying filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the order actually denies filing of Ware's mandamus petition.
2. Ware filed the application for discretionary appeal in the Supreme Court, which transferred the matter to this Court.
Source: Leagle
