Court Opinion

ID: 9960886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 15:06:14.145562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:01.334971
License: Public Domain

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

                                          ATLANTA,____________________
                                                   April 17, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1139. DEDRICK RENARD MURRAY v. THE STATE.

       On March 5, 2024, prisoner Dedrick Murray filed a pro se notice of appeal from
a trial court order entered on January 10, 2024. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
       A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order on appeal.
OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute
requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Perlman v. Perlman, 318 Ga. App. 731,
739 (4) (734 SE2d 560) (2012). Murray urges us to apply the “mailbox rule,” but that
rule applies only to habeas petitions and does not exempt a pro se prisoner from the
requirement to file a timely notice of appeal in a non-habeas criminal case. See
McCroskey v. State, 291 Ga. App. 15, 16 (2) (660 SE2d 735) (2008). Here, because
Murray’s notice of appeal was filed 55 days after entry of the order on appeal, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.1
                                          Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
                                             Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
                                                                         04/17/2024
                                                     I certify that the above is a true extract from
                                          the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
                                                     Witness my signature and the seal of said court
                                          hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

                                                                                            , Clerk.

       1
         Given our ruling, we express no opinion on whether Murray’s pro se filing
here is otherwise ineffective in light of the trial court’s ruling that he is not entitled to
self representation or hybrid representation in this case. See Johnson v. State, 315 Ga.
876, 890-891 (4) (885 SE2d 725) (2023).