Crawford v. Balli, A20A0124
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | Markle, Judge. |
| Citation | 355 Ga.App. 297,844 S.E.2d 236 |
| Docket Number | A20A0124 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 2020 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. BALLI et al. |
355 Ga.App. 297
844 S.E.2d 236
CRAWFORD
v.
BALLI et al.
A20A0124
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
June 3, 2020
The Barnes Law Group, Roy E. Barnes, John R. Bartholomew IV ; Virgil L. Brown, for appellant.
Charles P. Boring, Benjamin F. Easterlin IV, for appellees.
Markle, Judge.
After the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed ethics charges against superior court Judge Robert M. "Mack" Crawford, he filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto and for temporary and permanent injunctions against the JQC and its individual members, contending that the members of the JQC had not been properly appointed under OCGA § 15-1-21 (g) (1) because their names were not submitted to the Senate by the statutory deadline.1 The trial court denied the petition, finding that (1) Crawford failed to obtain leave of court to file the petition for quo warranto and therefore it was procedurally deficient; (2) the petition failed on the merits because the record showed that the JQC members had been appointed properly; and (3) the request for injunctive relief was moot. Crawford now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) finding the petition procedurally deficient because he had obtained a rule nisi hearing, which was sufficient to obtain leave of court; and (2) denying the petition on the merits because the only evidence it could consider was the Senate Journal and no presumption of regularity applied to
the confirmation process. Because we conclude that Crawford's quo warranto petition could not be considered on its merits due to his failure to obtain leave of court prior to filing it, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it on this basis.
We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Hill v. First Atlantic Bank , 323 Ga. App. 731, 732, 747 S.E.2d 892 (2013).
The underlying facts of this case are largely undisputed. In 2016, Georgia voters amended the state Constitution to alter the structure and power of the JQC. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Par. VI ; OCGA § 15-1-21 (a) (2017). As is relevant to this appeal, under the new format, the JQC was divided into two panels: an investigative panel and a hearing panel. OCGA § 15-1-21 (e) (1). The Governor, President of the senate, Supreme Court, and Speaker of the House each appointed members to one of these two panels, OCGA § 15-1-21 (f) (3) (A), (4) (A), and these appointments required Senate confirmation, OCGA § 15-1-21 (b).
The statute further mandates that the appointments be submitted to the Senate before the third Monday in January,2 which the parties agree was January 15. OCGA § 15-1-21 (g) (1). Failure to meet this deadline results in the appointee being ineligible. Id.
The Senate was not in session on January 15, and when it returned to session on January 18, the Secretary of the Senate delivered a memo to all senators to notify them that the names for the JQC appointees had been submitted and would be referred to the Committee on Assignments consistent with Senate Rule 3-3.1. The Senate Journal for January 18, which is the official record of Senate proceedings, contains the Secretary's memo and the letters of appointment.3
Ga. Const., Art. III, Sec. V, Par. 1. Ultimately, each appointee was confirmed by the senate.
After Crawford was investigated and charged with ethics violations, he filed the instant petition for quo warranto challenging the appointment of the JQC members. Specifically, he alleged that the appointments were not submitted to the Senate for confirmation
before the January 15 deadline, as required by OCGA § 15-1-21 (g) (1), and therefore the appointments were void.
The trial court issued a rule nisi, setting the hearing date the following month, and granting a temporary restraining order. That order, however, was rescinded prior to the hearing date because it granted a restraining order without a hearing. Nothing in the initial rule nisi gave Crawford leave to file the quo warranto.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition both for the failure to obtain leave of court prior to filing the petition and on the merits. This appeal followed.
1. Leave of Court.
Crawford argues that he obtained a rule nisi, which was sufficient to meet the procedural requirement that the petitioner obtain leave of court prior to filing a petition for quo warranto. Alternatively, he contends that we should remand for the trial court to dismiss the petition without prejudice if we were to conclude that the failure to obtain leave is dispositive. We conclude that obtaining leave of court is a threshold requirement, and, accordingly, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case.
"Quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy which exists solely by virtue of statute." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Richardson v. Phillips , 285 Ga. 385, 385, 677 S.E.2d 117 (2009). OCGA § 9-6-60 provides, "[t]he writ of quo warranto may issue to inquire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Real Estate Expert Advisors, LLC, A20A0038
...and we reverse the trial court's grant in their favor.41 2. Because we agree that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to 844 S.E.2d 236 REEA and Cousineau when they relied solely on admissions that did not bind Morris, we need not address Morris's alternative arguments in fav......
-
In re Crawford, S18Z1636
...of a plea deal, Crawford resigned from office and agreed not to seek or hold judicial office while on probation. See Crawford v. Balli , 355 Ga. App. 297, 297 n.1, 844 S.E.2d 236 (2020).5 The Constitution provides that the Commission has "the power to discipline, remove, and cause involunta......
-
Morris v. Real Estate Expert Advisors, LLC, A20A0038
...and we reverse the trial court's grant in their favor.41 2. Because we agree that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to 844 S.E.2d 236 REEA and Cousineau when they relied solely on admissions that did not bind Morris, we need not address Morris's alternative arguments in fav......
-
In re Crawford, S18Z1636
...of a plea deal, Crawford resigned from office and agreed not to seek or hold judicial office while on probation. See Crawford v. Balli , 355 Ga. App. 297, 297 n.1, 844 S.E.2d 236 (2020).5 The Constitution provides that the Commission has "the power to discipline, remove, and cause involunta......