Court Opinion

ID: 9590076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:51:21.108696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:43.622350
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to point out the dangers of the approach advocated by the dissent, which circumvents the clear jurisdictional limitations of this Court. However legally correct or emotionally appealing an argument may be, it must be properly enumerated in order to be considered. “Our function as intermediate appellate judges is to correct errors of law which are complained of. It does not extend to reaching into the record and sua sponte raising and deciding issues not presented by the parties. [Cits.] .... ‘The Court of Appeals is a court for the correction of errors below; it is not a court of original jurisdiction. [Cit.]’ Not only was the issue not raised or ruled on below, it is neither enumerated as error nor briefed. These are all prerequisites to our consideration of a question. [Cits.] It thus has been subjected to no adversarial debate by the parties, no submission of argument or citation of authorities on both sides of it. . . . We take a big jurisdictional step when we venture beyond the matters complained of.” (Footnote omitted.) Taylor v. State, 186 Ga. App. 113, 115-116 (366 SE2d 422) (1988) (Beasley, J., dissenting). Contrary to the assertion made by the dissent here, the raising, ruling, enumeration, and briefing of an issue are “all prerequisites to our consideration of a question.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id.1
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Andrews, Judge Ruffin, and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke join in this special concurrence.

 See, e.g., Norman v. State, 212 Ga. App. 105, 109 (4) (441 SE2d 94) (1994) (Beasley, J.); Loyd v. State, 202 Ga. App. 1, 2 (1) (c) (413 SE2d 222) (1991) (Beasley, J.); Worley v. State, 201 Ga. App. 704 (2) (411 SE2d 760) (1991) (Beasley, J.); Giles v. State, 197 Ga. App. 895, 897 (1) (400 SE2d 368) (1990) (Beasley, J.); Scott v. State, 193 Ga. App. 577, 579 (2) (388 SE2d 416) (1989) (Beasley, J.); City of College Park v. Ga. Power Co., 188 Ga. App. 223, 224 (372 SE2d 493) (1988) (Beasley, J.).