Kelly v. State, 315 Ga. 444

Background

Jeremiah Kelly was convicted of felony murder and related offenses in 2015 and timely filed a motion for new trial.
After a post-conviction motion-to-disqualify proceeding, the trial court held a hearing on Kelly’s motion for new trial on October 19, 2021 and instructed defense counsel to draft an order granting a new trial but allowing the State 30 days to request a rehearing.
On October 26, 2021 the court signed an order granting a new trial and expressly permitting the State to request rehearing within 30 days.
A new term of court began November 15, 2021; the State filed a rehearing request on November 23, 2021 (within 30 days of the written order but after the term had ended).
The trial court accepted the State’s out-of-term rehearing request, reopened proceedings, and on January 25, 2022 denied Kelly’s amended motion for new trial; Kelly appealed the denial.
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the out-of-term rehearing request and vacated the denial, rejected the State’s due-process challenge to the initial grant-of-new-trial order, and remanded for proceedings pursuant to the original new-trial order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kelly)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider its grant of a new trial after the term ended	The court lost jurisdiction when the court term expired; the State’s rehearing request filed after term was a nullity	The October 26 order gave the State 30 days to request rehearing and the State filed within that 30-day window, so rehearing was authorized	The court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the out-of-term rehearing; the denial of the motion for new trial is void and vacated
Whether the initial October 26 order granting a new trial was void for procedural unfairness	The October 26 order was a valid judicial order granting a new trial	The process was “functionally ex parte,” the order was drafted by defense counsel, and the State lacked meaningful opportunity to be heard; thus the order is void	The State’s procedural-fairness/due-process attack fails; the initial order remains effective
Whether the State can assert constitutional due process rights to invalidate the grant-of-new-trial order	N/A (Kelly opposes)	The State contends it was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard and thus deprived of due process	The Due Process Clause protects ‘‘persons,’’ not States; the State has no constitutional due-process right to attack the order in this manner, so the claim fails
Whether the State’s failure to cross-appeal or timely appeal cures jurisdictional defect	N/A (Kelly relies on jurisdictional rules)	The State argues circumstances (conflict counsel delay) excused its failure to appeal within 30 days and warrants relief	Even assuming the State could challenge without cross-appeal, its substantive challenge fails; court remanded for proceedings under the original new-trial order

Key Cases Cited

Barlow v. State, 279 Ga. 870 (2005) (trial court generally has inherent power to revise judgments during the same term but not beyond the term)
Moon v. State, 287 Ga. 304 (2010) (expiration of a court term bars after-term reconsideration in criminal cases absent a same-term motion)
Pledger v. State, 193 Ga. App. 588 (1989) (trial court’s inherent power to vacate grants of new trial ceases at term end)
Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, 303 Ga. 764 (2018) (written judgment controls over oral pronouncements; adoption of a party-drafted order does not negate judicial discretion)
State v. Holmes, 306 Ga. 647 (2019) (ex parte or party-proposed orders do not violate due process absent fundamental unfairness)
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) (Due Process Clause protections apply to persons, not States)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (due process protects individuals from arbitrary government action)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (touchstone of due process is protection of individuals against arbitrary governmental action)