Crosson v. Conway

Hicks v. Scott, 273 Ga. 358 2001 is overruled, and compliance with the procedural requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-14-52 is required for appellate jurisdiction over all habeas petitions.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After being indicted for certain theft crimes, Appellant Maureen Carole Crosson, who was a prisoner acting pro se, filed a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus. On July 27, 2011, the habeas court entered a final order granting a motion to dismiss filed by the Sheriff and denying the habeas petition, but did not inform Appellant of the proper appellate procedure for obtaining review of that order. Although Appellant did not request any extension of time, she filed, on September 12, 2011, a notice of appeal in the habeas court and an application for discretionary review in this Court. We granted that application to determine the jurisdictional issue of whether the holding in Hicks v. Scott, 273 Ga. 358 541 SE2d 27 2001, preventing an appeal by a pro se prisoner in a post-conviction habeas case from being dismissed for failure to comply with certain appellate procedural requirements unless he was correctly informed of those requirements, should be extended to pre-trial habeas cases and whether that holding in Hicks should be overruled.

1. An application for discretionary appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 is required to obtain review of an order on a pre-trial habeas petition filed by a prisoner. Brown v. Crawford, 289 Ga. 722 715 SE2d 132 2011 construing the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A failure to meet the statutory deadline for filing a discretionary application, which is 30 days under OCGA § 5-6-35 d plus any proper extensions pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-39, is a jurisdictional defect. Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81, 82 2 a 720 SE2d 170 2011 untimely application for discretionary appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial. The failure to comply with the discretionary appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-35 is likewise a jurisdictional defect compelling dismissal where, as here, the discretionary application is required by virtue of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Harris v. State, 278 Ga. 805, 806 1 606 SE2d 248 2005; Chambers v. Abellana, 237 Ga. App. 698 515 SE2d 884 1999; Brown v. Levine, 235 Ga. App. 63 508 SE2d 449 1998.

Crosson v. Conway

Hicks v. Scott, 273 Ga. 358 2001 is overruled, and compliance with the procedural requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-14-52 is required for appellate jurisdiction over all habeas petitions.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report