Court Opinion

ID: 9963899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:04:50.499807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:03.954759
License: Public Domain

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

                                         ATLANTA,____________________
                                                  April 26,
                                                        25, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0305, A24D0308. DAVID DEWAYNE WILLIAMSON v. THE STATE
(two cases).

      In 2020, a jury found David Dewayne Williamson guilty of two counts of child
cruelty, and we affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion. See Case No.
A22A1189 (Oct. 13, 2022). Since then, Williamson has filed several pro se pleadings,
including these two applications for discretionary appeal. We, however, lack
jurisdiction.
      As to Case No. A24D0305, the application materials reveal that Williamson
filed a motion to proceed pro se, which the trial court denied on the ground that
Williamson had repeatedly insisted that he was not willing to waive any of his rights.
Williamson filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s order, and the trial
court entered an order striking the notice of appeal. Williamson now seeks appellate
review of that ruling.
      “[A] trial court’s order dismissing a properly filed direct appeal is itself subject
to a direct appeal.” American Medical Security Group v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102, 103 (2)
(663 SE2d 697) (2008). However, a trial court’s order dismissing an improperly filed
direct appeal is not subject to direct appeal. See id. (where party filed a notice of
appeal from an interlocutory order, the trial court’s order dismissing that improperly-
filed direct appeal was, itself, an interlocutory order). Here, it is clear that
Williamson’s case remains pending before the trial court. Thus, his appeal from the
trial court’s order denying his request to proceed pro se was not “a properly filed
direct appeal,” and he is not entitled to appellate review of the trial court’s order
dismissing that appeal. See id.
      Regarding Case No. A24D0308, Williamson asserts that he filed a motion to
correct a void sentence in January 20241 and that the court has not yet ruled on his
motion. Nonetheless, he has filed an application for discretionary appeal.
      This Court is an appellate court for the correction of errors made by the trial
court; thus, we will not consider issues on which the trial court has not yet ruled.
Amica v. State, 307 Ga. App. 276, 282 (2) (704 SE2d 831) (2010). Without a ruling
from the trial court on Williamson’s motion to correct a void sentence, there is
nothing for this Court to review on appeal. In addition, regardless of nomenclature,
it appears that Williamson’s underlying motion to correct a void sentence seeks to
challenge the validity of his convictions. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690
SE2d 150) (2010). A motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment
of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of
a judgment in a criminal case,” and an appeal from the denial of such a motion is
subject to dismissal. Id.
      For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over these applications, which are hereby
DISMISSED.

                                        Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
                                          Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
                                                                      04/26/2024
                                                                      04/25/2024
                                                   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
        Williamson submitted a copy of the motion with his application, but it is not
file-stamped so this Court cannot confirm when it was filed.