Court Opinion

ID: 9585506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:01:13.847652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:32.359484
License: Public Domain

Benham, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of this appeal by the trial court. The majority opinion reverses the Court of Appeals and I respectfully dissent because I am unwilling, when the requirements for appellate practice are clearly set out in statute and in case law, to require the appellate courts to participate in a game of “hide n’ go seek” to determine whether an appeal has viability.
Comparing appellant’s notice of appeal, set out in the majority opinion, with OCGA § 5-6-37, also set out in the majority opinion, five instances of failure to comply with statutory requirements are readily apparent: 1) failure to designate the proper court; 2) failure to provide a concise statement of the judgment; 3) failure to designate the portion of the record to be omitted; 4) failure to provide a concise statement as to jurisdiction; and 5) failure to include a brief statement of the offense and the punishment.
While appellants can be excused from complying with some of the procedural niceties of OCGA § 5-6-37, we cannot allow them to disregard the requirements of the statute completely. This is especially so in light of the clear ruling of this court in Ballew v. State, 225 Ga. 547 (170 SE2d 242) (1969):
Nowhere does the notice set forth “a concise statement of the judgment, ruling or order entitling the appellant to take an appeal.” Nor does it contain “a brief statement of the offense and the punishment prescribed,” as required in criminal cases. Hence, the notice of appeal does not satisfy the requirements of the Appellate Practice Act (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 20; 1966, pp. 493, 495; [OCGA § 5-6-37]), and therefore, must be dismissed.
The majority opinion seeks to distinguish Ballew by suggesting that Brumby, unlike Ballew, did not “fail to specify any judgment whatever,” in that an inspection of the record, considered in conjunction with the information in the notice of appeal (case number, style, court and date of final judgment), would make clear the judgment Brumby was appealing. That position, however, is nothing but a “sub*219stantial compliance” approach, the very approach suggested by the dissent in Ballew but soundly rejected by the main opinion in that case. It cannot, therefore, be distinguished so easily as the majority opinion would have it.
Decided May 31, 1994.
Richard G. Brumby II, pro se.
Ben F. Smith, Jr., Solicitor, Barry E. Morgan, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
With the Appellate Practice Act, the legislature has sought to provide certainty, predictability, stability and uniformity. Relying on Ballew, the Court of Appeals has upheld the principles of the Appellate Practice Act in cases such as Fredericks v. State, 168 Ga. App. 278 (308 SE2d 693) (1983) and Hicks v. State, 121 Ga. App. 52 (172 SE2d 453) (1970). Now, however, it appears that the majority seeks to abandon Ballew, yet chooses not to overrule that case or any in which it has been applied. Such an approach only causes further confusion in the law and does nothing to enhance the efficient administration of justice. Quite the contrary: in the future, appellate courts will be obliged to embark on an expedition by scouring the notice of appeal, the enumerations of error, the transcript and, one must suppose, the briefs just to determine whether the court’s jurisdiction has been invoked under OCGA § 5-6-37. Such a requirement is completely contrary to the clear language of the statute and abundant case law. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Fletcher and Justice Hun-stein join in this dissent.