Court Opinion

ID: 9573729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:58:11.06351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:11.380960
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in Divisions 1, 2, and 3, and in the judgment of affirmance. I write separately because, in my opinion, this Court should not consider the untimely enumeration of error which the majority addresses in Division 4. Pittman first raised that enumeration in a motion to supplement his appellate brief filed more than two and one-half months after he filed his original brief and enumeration of errors.
This Court consistently refused to consider untimely enumerations of error under our former Rule 39, which required the enumerations to be filed as a separate part of appellant’s brief within 20 days after the case is docketed in this Court. Lewis v. State, 262 Ga. 679, 681 (3) (424 SE2d 626) (1993); Hullender v. State, 256 Ga. 86, 91 (5) (344 SE2d 207) (1986). See also Brooks v. State, 265 Ga. 548, 551 (8) (458 SE2d 349) (1995); Trenor v. State, 252 Ga. 264, 267 (8) (313 SE2d 482) (1984). Likewise, the Court of Appeals, with a similar rule, has repeatedly declined to consider untimely enumerations of error. Daniels v. State, 244 Ga. App. 522, 523 (536 SE2d 206) (2000); Lane v. State, 239 Ga. App. 230 (1) (520 SE2d 705) (1999); Wallace v. State, 216 Ga. App. 718, 721 (6) (455 SE2d 615) (1995); McGraw v. State, 199 Ga. App. 389 (405 SE2d 53) (1991); Powell v. State, 198 Ga. App. 509, 512 (3) (402 SE2d 108) (1991). Only in death penalty cases have we permitted review of assertions of error not timely enumerated as error, and then solely in instances of plain error. Hittson v. State, 264 Ga. 682, 690-691 (15) (449 SE2d 586) (1994), overruled on other grounds, Nance v. State, 272 Ga. 217, 220 (2), fn. 2 (526 SE2d 560) (2000); Lynd v. State, 262 Ga. 58, 60-61 (8) (414 SE2d 5) (1992).
In 1995, this Court amended and renumbered the applicable rules, as follows:
The enumeration of errors shall be stated as a separate part of, and shall be incorporated in, the brief. One separate and additional copy of the enumeration of errors . . . shall also be filed at the time of the filing of the briefs.
Supreme Court Rule 20. Rule 12 preserves the requirement that appellant’s brief be filed within 20 days after the case is docketed. When read together, our current rules still require the filing of enumerations of error within 20 days after docketing. Thus, since the 1995 amendments, this Court has continued to refuse to consider *852supplemental enumerations of error which are filed in an untimely manner. Harrison v. State, 268 Ga. 574, 578 (5) (492 SE2d 218) (1997); Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 464, 466 (6) (479 SE2d 719) (1997); Smith v. State, 267 Ga. 372, 377 (12) (477 SE2d 827) (1996); Fargason v. State, 266 Ga. 463, 466 (6) (467 SE2d 551) (1996). The only provision in our rules for additional enumerations applies where “a record is supplemented pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (f) or § 5-6-48 (d).” Supreme Court Rule 25. That circumstance is not present in this case. Supreme Court Rule 24, which permits the filing of supplemental briefs, does not allow the amendment or supplementation of the enumeration of errors after the time for filing the initial brief has expired. See Parrish v. State, 237 Ga. App. 274, 284 (11) (514 SE2d 458) (1999); Getty v. State, 202 Ga. App. 490, 491 (2) (415 SE2d 29) (1992). Otherwise, an appellant could easily delay the appellate process and endanger Georgia’s constitutionally mandated “two-term” rule.
Decided May 7, 2001
Reconsideration denied June 4, 2001.
Zell & Zell, Rodney S. Zell, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Anne E. Green, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Adam M. Hames, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
I believe that this Court’s rules and controlling case law require it to deny the motion to supplement appellant’s brief, and to refrain from addressing the additional enumeration contained therein.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hines joins in this opinion.