Little v. Booker
Decision Date | 14 June 2018 |
Docket Number | A18A0452 |
Citation | 816 S.E.2d 148,346 Ga.App. 305 |
Parties | LITTLE v. BOOKER. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael Curtis Jones, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Martin L. Fierman, Eatonton, for Appellee.
Gwenette Little appeals from a stalking twelve-month protective order and contends that appellee Linda Booker failed to meet the requirements of the relevant statute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
"The grant or denial of a motion for protective order generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pilcher v. Stribling , 282 Ga. 166, 167, 647 S.E.2d 8 (2007).
The court entered a temporary order and scheduled a hearing for May 9, 2017. Following a joint hearing in both the Little and Bullard cases, the court found Little to have knowingly and willfully violated OCGA § 16-5-90 et seq. and, among other things, ordered Little not to come within 50 yards of Booker, her immediate family, or their residence, place of employment, or school for a period of twelve months. The court further ordered that Little not have any other type of contact with Booker or her immediate family for the same period. On appeal, Little contends that the preponderance of the evidence did not support the elements of such an order.
1. We first address this Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because the order on appeal expired on May 8, 2018, "the issues
raised arguably are moot, and mootness is a mandatory ground for dismissal." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Baca v. Baca , 256 Ga. App. 514, 515 (1), 568 S.E.2d 746 (2002) ; see also OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3). But appeals are not moot where they involve "matters in which there is intrinsically insufficient time to obtain judicial relief for a claim common to an existing class of sufferers." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Collins v. Lombard Corp. , 270 Ga. 120, 121-122 (1), 508 S.E.2d 653 (1998) ; see also Inserection v. City of Marietta , 278 Ga. 170, 171 (2), 598 S.E.2d 452 (2004) (). "Accordingly, we must address whether the various issues are common to an existing class, yet tend to evade review." Baca , 256 Ga. App. at 516 (1), 568 S.E.2d 746.
In Elgin v. Swann , 315 Ga. App. 809, 810 (1), 728 S.E.2d 328 (2012), this Court held that although the six-month stalking protective order on appeal had expired, the issues raised on appeal—the correct burden of proof and the sufficiency of the evidence—were not moot for two reasons. First, the issues were capable of repetition because they concerned whether the evidence showed "a pattern of harassing or intimidating conduct and a potential for future stalking [that] could arise again in the context of another stalking protective order." Id. at 810 (1), 728 S.E.2d 328. Second, the issues were likely to evade review because "[a] stalking protective order is limited by statute to a duration of 12 months, although it can later be renewed for a greater time period or be made permanent." Id. Further, the time constraints of the appellate courts often leave insufficient time to address the merits of such an appeal. Id. For the same reasons as in Elgin , we conclude the appeal in the present case is not moot. Compare Baca , 256 Ga. App. at 516 (1), 568 S.E.2d 746 ( ); Birchby v. Carboy , 311 Ga. App. 538, 540 (2), 716 S.E.2d 592 (2011) ( ).
Id. These elements of the offense must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Pilcher , 282 Ga. at 167, 647 S.E.2d 8.
Construed in favor of the trial court’s decision, the evidence presented at the hearing showed that Booker, a retired school teacher, lives with her two grown sons across the street from the Little home. When Booker has had company or contractors at her home, Little and Bullard2 have come outside to take pictures of the Bookers and to make negative comments about the Booker family, including suggesting that the Bookers are involved in criminal activity; these comments were loud enough to be heard at the Booker home. Similarly, Little and Bullard have constantly watched the Booker family and documented their comings and goings, including, on one recent occasion, video-taping a repairman at the Little home.
Booker testified to specific incidents of harassment, as well. In November 2013, Little and Bullard accused Booker of insurance fraud and accused Booker’s son of dealing drugs. Little and Bullard have also threatened to report the Bookers to the police, namely to a drug task force investigator for Putnam County, for unspecified behavior. On one occasion Booker observed Little driving her car in a manner such that it appeared to Booker that Little was intentionally following Booker and her son through town. Booker testified that the Little’s behavior was frightening and made Booker feel physically threatened and bullied....
To continue reading
Request your trial- Meddings v. State, A18A0422
-
Rhoden v. Rhoden
...on the face of the trial court's order, the transcript was not necessary for our review.5 (Punctuation omitted.) Little v. Booker , 346 Ga. App. 305, 816 S.E.2d 148 (2018), quoting Pilcher v. Stribling , 282 Ga. 166, 167, 647 S.E.2d 8 (2007).6 Wildes , 347 Ga. App. at 348-349, n. 4, 819 S.E......