Court Opinion

ID: 9582195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:23:42.025004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:31.570080
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Birdsong, Judge.
The basis of the decision in this case is the appellant’s failure to address and argue two of his three enumerations of error in his brief which by extension was due October 1,. 1979. Nevertheless, appellant Oxley on motion for rehearing raises the specter of whether this court’s "[seeming] irritation [at appellant’s counsel for not meeting the December 6, 1979 deadline for his supplemental brief] led to the harsh result of affirmance” of the trial court (see Code § 24-3605 (a)). He asserts by his own affidavit and that of his attorney that on November 19, 1979, at oral argument, the *40presiding judge "interjected that the Bench would welcome written argument in a supplemental brief dealing with enumerated errors not argued in the first brief.” This assertion is misconceived. The court was asked for, and gave as a matter of course, permission to file a supplemental brief pursuant to Code § 24-3617 (Rule 17; see 1979 revision, Rule 12); the court was not at that time apprised that appellant intended to include therein arguments for enumerations of error which he had not previously filed in brief pursuant to Code § 24-3616 (a) (Rule 16), and in circumvention of that rule and Code § 24-3618 (c) (2) (Rule 18 (c) (2); see 1979 revised Rule 15 (c) (2)). The court did not, and could not, give the permission which appellant now asserts he received.
It is beyond the lawful powers of any judge of this court to grant this or any other appellant permission to flout the rules of this court which deem an enumeration of error abandoned if not set forth and argued in the initial brief. It now seems manifest that on October 16, when appellant Oxley filed his "Notice of Intention to File Supplemental Brief and Non-Abandonment of Enumerated Errors,” appellant was fully aware of the import of Rule 18 (c), Code § 24-3618 (c) (2), and the holding in Johnson v. Heifler, 141 Ga. App. 460, 462-464 (233 SE2d 853), but desired to circumvent this rule of the court and enlarge for his client an inordinate amount of time to present his case. The appeal in this case was docketed August 20; 1979; appellant’s enumerations of error and brief were due September 10. This court, on September 5, granted a twenty-day extension of that due date, upon appellant’s plea of overwork and other court conflicts. In fact, he ultimately sought, and now argues that he has entitled himself to three months to present his case rather than the twenty days provided in Code § 24-3616 and Rule 16 (a) of this court. Appellant insists that Johnson v. Heifler, supra, does not apply to him because the "appellee and the Court were offered protection by appellant’s” announcement to this court that he would argue his second and third enumerations of error in a supplemental brief and that he had not waived those alleged errors despite what is clearly said in Rule 18 (c) and Code §24-3618 (c) (2). That assertion does not merit a further reply than what we have already ruled in deciding this appeal, but it does bring into focus a course of conduct by the appellant in this case that clearly evinces an attitude of disregard bordering on contempt for the rules of this court. As we distinctly held in Johnson v. Heifler, supra, an appellant’s attempt to circumvent the rules of this court by attempting to argue his case in a delayed supplemental brief will not be tolerated, and certainly not in the argumentative fashion *41attempted by this appellant on motion for rehearing. Appellant’s continued attempts to belatedly enlarge his enumerations in this case go to the heart of every appeal in this court (Code § 24-3618 (c) (2)); and see Ezzard v. State, 229 Ga. 465 (192 SE2d 374)); and are in disregard of the rules of our court, and we caution appellant that his conduct borders on the contumacious.

Motion for rehearing denied.