# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o 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 :

A2 4 D0 41 1 . RAI SSA KENGNE v . THE STATE.

Raissa K engne is f

ac ing c riminal p ro sec utio n, and she has f iled nu mero u s p ro

se m o t io ns in t he trial c o u rt. On J u ne 1 7 , 2024, the trial co u rt d etermined that K engne,

w ho is rep r esented by c ou nsel belo w , is no t au t ho riz ed to f ile p ro se mo tio ns, and it
d ismissed her f

ilings. K engne then f

iled this p r o se ap p lic atio n in w hic h she seek s to

ap p eal the J u ne 1 7 o rd er u nd e r OCGA § 5- 6

- 34 (b). W e, ho wev er, lac k j u risd ic tio n.
B a sed u p o n th e material su bmitted by K engne, it ap p ears that the c harges against her remain p end ing in the trial c o u rt. B ec a u se the ord er s he seek s to ap p eal is

no t final, she w a s r e q u i r ed to c o mp ly w ith the interlo c u to ry ap p eal p ro c ed u res set
f o rth in OCGA § 5- 6

- 34 (b) in o rd er to ap p eal. See S cru ggs v

. Ga

. D ept. of Hu ma n
R e s o u r c es , 26 1 Ga. 587 , 589 (1 ) (408 SE2d 103) (1 9 91 ) ( “ [A ] p arty seek ing ap p ellat e

rev iew fro m an interlo c u to ry o rd e r m u st f o llo w the interlo cu t ory- a p p lic atio n

su bsec tio n, OCGA § 5- 6- 34 (b), seek a c e rtif ic ate o f immed iate rev iew f ro m the trial

c o u rt, and c o mp ly w ith the t ime limitatio ns therein. ”). Giv en K engne’ s f ailu re to

o btain a c ertif

ic ate o f immed iate rev iew , w e lac k j u risd ic t io n o ver this ap p lic atio n f o r interlo c u to ry ap peal. See Scru ggs , 26 1 Ga. at 589 (1 ).

Fu rthermo re, w e f

ind that K engne is no t au t ho riz ed to rep resent herself bef o re this Co u rt. I n Jo hn s o n v

. Sta te , the Su p reme Co u rt rec o gniz ed t hat a litigant d o es no t
hav e a right to rep resent herself w hile simu ltaneo u sly b eing rep resented by c o u nsel.

Jo hn s o n v

. S t

a te , 31 5 G a. 87 6 , 880 (2) (a) (885 SE2d 7 25) (2023). The Su preme Co urt

c o nc lu d ed , ho w e v er, that a trial c o urt has d isc retio n to allo w hybrid rep resentatio n. See id

. a t 89 0- 89 1 (4). Th e S u p reme Co u rt su ggested that it wo u ld be u p to an July 22, 2024ap p ellate c ou r t t o d etermine whether it wo u ld rec o gniz e p ro se f ilings by a co u nseled
d ef end ant d irec ted to the ap p ellate c o u rt. I d

. at 89 1 n

. 1 5 (“ A ltho u gh many su c h
d ec isio ns w ill be mad e by trial c o u rts , t h e d e c isio n w hether to r ec o gniz e a p ro se

n o t i c e o f ap p eal remains o ne fo r ap p ellate c o u rts to m a k e. ” ). Hav ing rev iew ed t h e material su bmitted by K engne, w e f ind that this is no t o ne o f the rare cases in w hic h hybrid rep r esentatio n is w arranted

. See id

. at 89 0 (4) ( “W e exp ec t th at c ou rts w ill

exerc ise d isc retio n to rec o gniz e p ro se f ilings by c o u nseled d ef

e nd a nts sp aringly. ” ).

Fo r these reaso ns, this ap p lic atio n is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 07/22/2024