Delano Wright v. State
A17A0872
| Ga. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Delano Wright was convicted by a Cobb County jury in 2014 of two counts of child molestation (OCGA § 16-6-4) and first-degree cruelty to children (OCGA § 16-5-70).
- Wright was represented at trial but in 2015 filed a notice to proceed pro se for post-trial matters; the trial court conducted a Faretta inquiry and allowed self-representation.
- The trial court denied Wright’s motion for a new trial on January 29, 2016; Wright filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on February 23, 2016.
- This Court docketed the appeal December 21, 2016, and granted two prior extensions for filing an enumeration of errors and brief, most recently to April 3, 2017.
- Wright filed a third motion for a 30-day extension, citing inadequate access to the prison law library; the Court found he had ample time (over 14 months after denial of new trial and over 3 months after docketing) and denied the extension.
- Because Wright failed to file the required enumeration and brief despite two generous extensions, the Court deemed the appeal abandoned and dismissed it under Court of Appeals Rules 7 and 23(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright should receive another extension to file his appellate brief | Wright: lacks adequate access to institutional law library; needs additional 30 days | State: Wright had prior extensions and sufficient time to prepare; pro se status does not excuse rule compliance | Denied — no further extension; appeal dismissed for abandonment |
| Whether pro se status excuses compliance with appellate filing rules | Wright: implied that limited access and pro se status justify delay | State/Court: pro se litigants remain bound by procedural rules | Held that pro se status does not relieve obligation to follow rules |
| Whether Faretta waiver affected appellate procedure | Wright: previously allowed to proceed pro se after proper waiver | State: waiver does not alter appellate filing obligations | Court recognized valid Faretta waiver but still required compliance with appellate rules |
| Whether dismissal for abandonment was appropriate | Wright: argued need for more time due to access issues | State/Court: given prior opportunities and time elapsed, dismissal appropriate | Appeal deemed abandoned and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self-representation after valid waiver)
- Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439 (2012) (Georgia recognition of Faretta standards)
- Thomas v. State, 331 Ga. App. 641 (2015) (discussing self-representation and procedural requirements)
- Arrington v. State, 332 Ga. App. 481 (2015) (pro se appellants remain bound by appellate rules)
- Lewis v. State, 330 Ga. App. 650 (2015) (same)
- Riggs v. State, 319 Ga. App. 189 (2012) (same)