Brock v. Hardman, 303 Ga. 729

James Brock was convicted of two counts of murder (and other offenses) following prosecution under criminal docket SU-10-CR-2571; the case was originally numbered SU-09-CR-3127 before a superseding indictment.
After his direct appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief, Brock filed a mandamus petition in superior court seeking records (case summary report, indictment, final disposition) for SU-09-CR-3127 to support a double-jeopardy/new-trial theory.
The superior court denied the mandamus petition under OCGA § 9-15-2(d). Brock filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia from that denial.
The Supreme Court examined whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the mandamus was filed as a separate civil action (extraordinary remedy) rather than under the criminal docket.
The Court concluded the mandamus petition concerned proceedings in which a sentence of death could have been imposed (a murder prosecution) and therefore fell within the Supreme Court’s narrowed extraordinary-remedies jurisdiction under OCGA § 15-3-3.1(a)(4).
Despite retaining jurisdiction, the Court dismissed Brock’s appeal because prisoners appealing civil actions must file a discretionary application under OCGA § 42-12-8; Brock filed a direct appeal instead.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this appeal arising from a mandamus petition filed as a separate civil action	Brock argued the petition sought records related to his murder prosecution and thus the appeal should be before the Supreme Court	State/Respondent argued the mandamus was a separate civil action and not necessarily within the Supreme Court’s murder/extraordinary-remedy jurisdiction	Court held the mandamus petition concerned proceedings in which a death sentence could be imposed (murder prosecution) and thus falls within OCGA § 15-3-3.1(a)(4); Supreme Court has jurisdiction
Whether a prisoner must file a discretionary application instead of a direct appeal for civil actions	Brock proceeded by filing a direct appeal from mandamus denial	Respondent relied on OCGA § 42-12-8 requiring prisoners to use discretionary-application procedure for civil appeals	Court held Brock’s appeal must be dismissed for failure to file a required discretionary application

Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. 241 (2018) (discussing when post-trial requests for records in murder cases bring an appeal within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction)
Fulton County v. City of Atlanta, 299 Ga. 676 (2016) (court’s duty to inquire into jurisdiction when doubt exists)
Clayton County Bd. of Commrs. v. Murphy, 297 Ga. 763 (2015) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to compel a public officer to perform required duty)
Ga. Assn. of Professional Process Servers v. Jackson, 302 Ga. 309 (2017) (scope of Supreme Court jurisdiction over extraordinary remedies before statutory change)
In re Brinson, 299 Ga. 859 (2016) (examples of Supreme Court jurisdiction arising from murder prosecutions even when matters are collateral to charges)
WALB-TV, Inc. v. Gibson, 269 Ga. 564 (1998) (media access to court records in murder-related proceedings under Supreme Court jurisdiction)
Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563 (2012) (interpretation that murder cases fall within Supreme Court jurisdiction because death could be imposed)
Harris v. State, 278 Ga. 805 (2004) (prisoner appeals of civil actions must proceed via discretionary application under OCGA § 42-12-8)