Richards v. StateRichards v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Benham
Appellant William Clarence Richards was convicted of malice murder in 1992, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this Court in 1993. Richards v. State, 263 Ga. 65 (428 SE2d 84) (1993). In August 2001, appellant, acting pro se, filed a motion for out-of-time appeal in the superior court in which his conviction was obtained. In the motion, appellant sought an evidentiary hearing and a judicial ruling on his claim that he was denied his constitutionally-guaranteed right to the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in conjunction with his 1992 murder conviction. After noting that this Court had reviewed appellant’s conviction on direct appeal in 1993, that an out-of-time appeal is appropriate when the defendant has not had a direct appeal, and that appellant should file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county of his incarceration, the trial court denied the motion for out-of-time appeal. This direct appeal followed.
“It is the duty of this court to raise the question of its jurisdiction in all cases in which there may be any doubt as to the existence of such jurisdiction.” Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). We hold that there is no right to directly appeal the denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal filed by a criminal defendant whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
All the Justices concur.
Notes
A criminal defendant who has had a conviction affirmed on direct appeal may gain farther appellate review of the judgment of conviction by filing an extraordinary motion for new trial or a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Grant v. State,
supra, 159 Ga. App. at 3. However, the pleading filed by appellant seeking additional appellate review of his conviction cannot be considered an extraordinary motion for new trial since a criminal defendant is statutorily limited to filing one extraordinary motion for new trial (