Patrick Koroma v. State
A17A1767
| Ga. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Koroma sought discretionary review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for sentence modification; this Court granted the application on August 9, 2016 under OCGA § 5-6-35(j).
- OCGA § 5-6-35(g) requires an appellant to file a notice of appeal within 10 days of the order granting a discretionary appeal.
- Koroma alleges he mailed his notice of appeal on August 16, 2016, but the notice was not docketed by the Court of Appeals until September 13, 2016.
- The State moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal; the Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction.
- The Court concluded the notice was not timely filed and that the federal-style "mailbox rule" (crediting the mailing date) does not apply outside habeas corpus proceedings.
- The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but explained Koroma may challenge the clerk’s filing date in the trial court; if revised, the clerk must retransmit the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koroma’s notice of appeal was filed timely so as to confer jurisdiction | Koroma: mailed the notice on Aug 16, within 10 days of Aug 9, so filing should be treated as timely (mailbox rule) | State: docketing date is controlling; notice was not filed within 10 days so appeal is untimely | Court: mailbox rule inapplicable; notice not timely; no jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the appellant bears the burden to file a timely notice and effect on jurisdiction | Koroma: implied challenge to strict timing because of mailing evidence | State: appellant must timely file; timely filing is jurisdictional | Court: timely filing is an absolute requirement; burden on appellant; failure to comply deprives the Court of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court clerk’s filing-date endorsement is conclusive and remedies if incorrect | Koroma: can show actual handing to clerk within 10 days and seek correction | State: clerk’s date presumed correct | Court: clerk’s date presumed but rebuttable; Koroma may move in trial court to change filing date; if changed, clerk must retransmit appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrief v. Tara Apts., Ltd., 162 Ga. App. 695 (1982) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional and burden is on appellant)
- Jackson v. State, 313 Ga. App. 483 (2011) (Georgia mailbox rule applying mailing date is limited to habeas matters)
- Barnes v. Justis, 223 Ga. App. 671 (1996) (dismissing a discretionary appeal for failure to file a timely notice under OCGA § 5-6-35(g))
- Brinson v. Georgia R. Bank & Trust Co., 45 Ga. App. 459 (1932) (trial court clerk’s filing-date endorsement is presumed correct but rebuttable)
- Lavan v. Philips, 184 Ga. App. 573 (1987) (party should be allowed to challenge the filing date if documentary evidence suggests an earlier filing)
- McDaniel v. Columbus Fertilizer Co., 109 Ga. 284 (1899) (the filing date must be established as a matter of record)