# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A1 64 3 . CONFESOR CHAPARRO v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 4

, a ju ry fo u n d Co n fes o r Ch ap arro gu i lt y o f f o u r co un t s o f ag g rav at ed

ch i l d m o les t at i o n , an d t h e t ri al co u rt im p o s ed a t o tal s en ten ce o f 3 0 y ears i n p ri s o n,

t o b e fo l l owed by 2 0 y ears o n p ro b at io n

. W e affi rm ed h i s ju d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n o n

d i rect ap p eal

. Ch ap a r ro v. S t a t e , 2 7 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 5 (6 3 0 SE2 d 6 4 5 ) (2 0 0 6 ).

In Sep t em b er 2 0 1 8, Ch ap arro fi l ed a “ M o t i o n fo r E xt rao rd i n ary Rel i ef,” wh i ch

t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed i n No v em b er 2 0 1 8. 1 Ch ap arro s o u g ht ap p el l at e rev i ew o f t h e

No v em b er 2 0 1 8 o rd er b y fi l i n g b o t h a d i rect ap p eal

– wh i ch has b een do ck et ed as t h e

i n s t an t cas e, No

. A1 9 A1 6 4 3

– an d an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew, w h i ch we

d i s m i s s ed o n t h e g ro u n d t h at Ch ap arro ’ s Sep t em b er 20 1 8 m o t i o n es s en t i al l y s o u g ht

t o vacat e o r m o d i fy h i s j u d gm en t o f co n v i ct i o n

, wh i ch i s n ot an ap p ro p ri at e rem ed y

i n a cri m i n al cas e. See Ch a p ar r o v. S t a t e

, No

. A 1 9 D0 2 2 4 (Dec. 1 9

, 2 0 18 ); s ee al s o

Ro b er t s v. S t a t e

, 28 6 Ga. 5 3 2

, 53 2 (6 9 0 SE2 d 1 5 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ); Ha r p er v. St a t e

, 2 8 6 Ga.

2 1 6 , 2 1 8 (1 ) (6 8 6 SE2 d 7 86 ) (2 0 0 9 ).

Becau s e w e reject ed Ch ap arro ’ s ch al l en g e t o t h e t ri al co u rt o rd er s o ug h t t o b e

ap p eal ed h ere i n Cas e No

. A1 9 D0 2 2 4

, t h e cu rren t ap p eal is b arred b y th e l aw o f t h e

cas e. See Ro s s v. St a t e

, 31 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 6

, 32 7 (7 1 3 SE2 d 4 3 8) (2 0 1 1) (“ [A] n y i s s u e

t h at was rai s ed an d res ol v ed in an earl i er ap peal is t h e l aw o f th e cas e an d i s b i n d i n g

o n t h i s Co u rt

. . . .”) (p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ); acco rd Ho ok v. Ber gen

, 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 8,

2 6 1 (1 ) (6 4 9 SE2 d 31 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (a ru l i n g o n an ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

1 Ch ap arro ’ s Sep t em

b er 20 1 8 m o t i o n w as n ot in cl ud ed i n t h e cu rren t reco rd o n

ap p eal

. April 10, 2019act s as res ju d i cat a i n l at er p ro ceed i n g s ); s ee al s o Ja cks o n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 3 G a. 3 2 0

, 3 2 0

( 5 4 0 SE2 d 6 1 2 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (a d efen d an t “ i s n o t en ti t l ed to an o t h er b i te at t h e ap p l e b y

way of a s eco n d ap p eal ”). Co n s eq u en t ly

, t here i s n o t h i n g fo r t h i s Co u rt t o rev i ew in

t h e i n s tan t ap p eal

, wh i ch i s hereb y DISM ISSED. See Ja cks o n

, 2 7 3 Ga. at 3 2 0 ; Ro s s

,

3 1 0 Ga. Ap p . at 3 27 -3 2 8

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/10/2019