Court Opinion

ID: 9610040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:35:51.545995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:56.116158
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
dissenting.
As the majority recognizes, this appeal results from this Court’s grant of Appellant’s application for a certificate of probable cause. However, Justice Hines and I dissented to the grant of the application, because it was undisputed that the same was not timely filed. Under the controlling precedent of Fullwood v. Sivley, 271 Ga. 248, 250-251 (517 SE2d 511) (1999), this Court did not then have and does not now have any jurisdiction whatsoever because the habeas petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirement that an application for certificate of probable cause be timely filed. Furthermore, we have no authority to waive enforcement of this jurisdictional mandate. Fullwood v. Sivley, supra at 251-254. As justification for its selective disregard of Fullwood, the majority cites only a factual distinction. Unlike in Fullwood, supra at 249, the order entered in this case does not contain any information regarding “the proper procedure for obtaining appellate review. . . .” However, the inclusion of that information in the Fullwood order was gratuitous because there is no requirement that a habeas court inform the losing party of the applicable procedure for invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. Habeas corpus is in the nature of a civil remedy, and the unsuccessful party is entitled only to the same assistance in obtaining appellate review as any other losing civil litigant. Compare Murphy v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 13 (262 SE2d 784) (1980) (informing criminal defendant of right to appeal conviction and sentence). Inclusion of the information regarding appeal was unnecessary in Fullwood, and the absence of such information here does not authorize us to find that we have jurisdiction when none exists. Fullwood differs on its particular facts, but its holding sets forth the legal principles which are controlling in this appeal. Thus, the majority has once again transformed the issue of jurisdiction in habeas cases into a matter for the exercise of its discretion. See Waldrip v. Head, 272 Ga. 572, 580-583 (532 SE2d 380) (2000) (Carley, J., dissenting). However, it is incumbent upon us to enforce all jurisdictional requirements equally and fairly. “This Court is not at liberty ‘to ignore jurisdictional and procedural statutes and rules, and to change its role from disinterested decision-maker to appellate advocate reviewing a trial record for error.’ [Cit.]” Fullwood v. Sivley, supra at 249.
The improper grant of a certificate of probable cause in a case *361where we have no jurisdiction cannot itself invest us with jurisdiction over the ensuing appeal. It is our “duty to raise and resolve questions pertaining to [our] jurisdiction whenever there is any doubt concerning whether such jurisdiction exists.” (Emphasis supplied.) Redfearn v. Huntcliff Homes Assn., 271 Ga. 745, 746 (1) (524 SE2d 464) (1999). I dissent to the judgment of reversal and remand, just as I previously dissented to the grant of the untimely application for certificate of probable cause. Jurisdiction has not existed at any time during this Court’s consideration of this case, up to and including today’s decision.
Decided January 22, 2001.
Bruce S. Harvey, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Peggy R. Katz, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hines joins in this dissent.