Moten v. State, 315 Ga. 31

Victor Keyshawn Moten was convicted (malice murder and related counts) after a joint jury trial and sentenced to life plus additional terms; he timely filed a boilerplate motion for new trial on December 19, 2016.
Appellate counsel was later appointed; the trial court issued a scheduling order setting a deadline for amended motions (initially Feb. 24, 2022; later extended to Mar. 30, 2022).
Moten did not file an amended motion by that deadline; at the May 2, 2022 hearing, appellate counsel tendered an amended motion adding an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim and explained the delay as an email/access issue.
The trial court refused to accept or consider the untimely amended motion and limited the hearing to the original motion for new trial, then denied the original motion.
Moten appealed; the Georgia Supreme Court considered whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the amendment, given OCGA § 5-5-40(b)’s provision that a motion for new trial may be amended "any time on or before the ruling thereon."
The Court held the trial court erred, vacated the order denying the motion for new trial, and remanded to allow Moten to amend his motion for new trial and have the claim considered.

Issue	Moten's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could refuse to consider an amended motion for new trial filed at the start of the hearing because it missed the court’s scheduling-order deadline	OCGA § 5-5-40(b) permits amendment any time before the court’s ruling; the scheduling order cannot override that statutory right	The scheduling order set a deadline for amended motions and counsel missed it, so the court properly enforced its order	The Court held the trial court erred; statutory right to amend before ruling controls and amendment must be allowed
Whether denial of the amendment deprived Moten of a meaningful appeal	Denial prevented presentation of an ineffective-assistance claim and foreclosed meaningful appellate review	Enforcement of the scheduling order justified exclusion of late claims	The Court agreed Moten was deprived of the opportunity to present the claim and remanded for consideration of the amended motion

Hegedus v. Hegedus, 255 Ga. 44 (1985) (construing OCGA § 5-5-40 to permit amendments to a motion for new trial until the trial court’s final disposition)
Whipkey v. State, 353 Ga. App. 592 (2020) (holding a scheduling order cannot conflict with the statutory right to amend a motion for new trial prior to the court’s ruling)
Allen v. State, 353 Ga. App. 442 (2020) (defendant entitled to amend motion for new trial until the trial court files its final order)
Whitton v. State, 174 Ga. App. 634 (1985) (motion for new trial as amended before ruling is properly before the court and must be addressed)
Malcom v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (1993) (discusses operation-of-law vacatur of redundant counts)