Bradberry v. State
315 Ga. App. 434
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bradberry was convicted of rape, three counts of child molestation, and two counts of cruelty to children; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Bradberry sought post-conviction relief: (i) a sentence-modification motion and (ii) forensic testing of a semen sample for condom lubricants.
- Trial court denied both motions in a single order on November 17, 2010.
- Bradberry appealed December 13, 2010, arguing for direct review of the denial of semen-sample testing.
- Georgia appellate law treats DNA-testing motions under OCGA § 5-5-41(c) as not directly appealable if not framed as a traditional DNA test; the semen-test request used non-DNA methods.
- Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding no independent basis for direct appeal existed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of semen-lubricant testing is directly appealable | Bradberry asserts direct appeal under OCGA § 5-5-41(c). | State contends § 5-5-41(c) covers only DNA testing, not semen-lubricant testing. | Not directly appealable; lack of independent basis; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether collateral order doctrine permits direct appeal | Bradberry argues collateral-order appeal rights apply. | State argues collateral-order doctrine does not authorize direct appeal of this issue. | Collateral order doctrine does not support direct appeal here. |
| Whether Bradberry may challenge sentencing via direct appeal | Bradberry aimed to challenge sentencing via post-conviction relief appeal. | State asserts the sentencing portion is not properly appealable in this context. | Bradberry cannot obtain direct review of sentencing through this route; the appeal remains dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura v. State, 280 Ga.App. 685 (2006) (duty to inquire into jurisdiction in all instances)
- Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746 (2007) (collateral order doctrine and finality considerations)
- Gulledge v. State, 276 Ga. 740 (2003) (direct appeal not allowed from extraordinary motion for new trial unless discretionary appeal sought)
- Crawford v. State, 278 Ga. 95 (2004) (interpretation of discretionary appeal requirements)
- Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410 (2008) (review limitations after exhaustion of direct appeal)
- Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320 (2001) (general rule: one direct appeal from a judgment of conviction)
- Cox v. Hillyer, 65 Ga. 57 (1880) (historical exceptions to single direct appeal rule)
- Williams v. State, 271 Ga. 686 (1999) (exceptions related to sentence modification and appealability)
- Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190 (2002) (post-conviction remedies limited after direct appeal)
- Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 305 Ga.App. 450 (2012) (appellate review of judgments and related rulings)