Darrell Lewis appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.
An out-of-time appeal serves as the remedy for a frustrated right of appeal for a criminal defendant whose conviction has not been reviewed by an appellate court. It is the means by which a criminal defendant who lost his right to direct appeal of his criminal conviction due to counsel’s negligence, ignorance, or misinterpretation of the law may gain that appellate review.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Jackson v. State,
The relevant facts are as follows. In 1991, a Laurens County jury convicted Lewis on three counts of aggravated assault. Lewis filed a direct appeal, and this Court affirmed his convictions in
Lewis v. State,
Lewis subsequently filed four motions with the trial court: a motion to vacate a null and void sentence and conviction, a motion for the production of evidence, a motion to amend a pending case, and a motion for the appointment of counsel. The trial court denied each of the motions on November 6, 2008. According to Lewis, on December 4, 2008, he mailed a notice of appeal from the orders, sending them to the Superior Court of Laurens County from the Coffee Correctional Facility, where he was incarcerated. The Laurens County court clerk never received that notice of appeal, however, so Lewis filed another notice of appeal from the orders on February 9, 2009. In a February 25, 2009 order, this Court dismissed Lewis’ notice of appeal as untimely.
On May 6, 2009, Lewis filed the instant motion for an out-of-time appeal from the trial court’s November 6, 2008 orders. In his motion, Lewis asserted that, due to the unexplained loss of his December 2008 notice of appeal and the dismissal of his February 2009 notice of appeal, he lost his right to appellate review of his conviction and, therefore, was entitled to an out-of-time appeal.
As shown above, though, Lewis has already had appellate review of his conviction pursuant to a direct appeal, as well as consideration of his habeas corpus petitions. Under these circumstances, Lewis is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of an out-of-time appeal.
Jackson v. State,
Now, in his appellate brief, Lewis argues that, pursuant to the pro se prisoner litigant “mailbox” rule enunciated in
Massaline v. Williams,
Judgment affirmed.
