State v. Cash
Decision Date | 16 November 2015 |
Docket Number | No. S15A0720.,S15A0720. |
Citation | 779 S.E.2d 603,298 Ga. 90 |
Parties | The STATE v. CASH et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Steven J. Messinger, Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., Donald R. Donovan, Dist. Atty., Paulding County District Attorney's Office, Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Matthew Blackwell Crowder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Department of Law, for appellant.
Andrew Santos Fleischman, Office of the Circuit Public Defender, Robert H. Citronberg, Atlanta, for appellee.
The State appeals the trial court's grant of new trials to appellees, Elgerie Cash and her daughter, Jennifer Weathington, who were tried together in Paulding County Superior Court and found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Lennis Jones.1 Appellees, who claimed the victim accidentally shot himself, each filed a motion for new trial.
Four days prior to the scheduled hearing on the new trial motions, the State filed a motion to recuse the trial judge. The trial judge dismissed the State's recusal motion as legally insufficient without referring it to another judge and orally denied the State's request for a certificate of immediate review. The State immediately filed a notice of direct appeal, which the trial court dismissed as frivolous and dilatory. After denying the State's request for a continuance, the trial court proceeded with the motion for new trial hearing as scheduled.
Following a two-day hearing, the trial court granted both appellees' motions for new trial, finding they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that the verdicts were contrary to the principles of justice and equity and decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence. Thereafter, the State filed a notice of appeal, appealing the trial court's orders granting appellees' motions for new trial, as well as its order denying the State's motion to recuse. For the reasons which follow, we dismiss the State's appeal of the denial of its motion to recuse and affirm the trial court's grant of new trials to appellees.2
1. Appellees contend that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's order denying the State's motion to recuse. We agree.
(a) Appeals by the State in criminal cases are construed strictly against the State and "the State may not appeal any issue in a criminal case, whether by direct or discretionary appeal, unless that issue is listed in OCGA § 5–7–1." State v. Martin, 278 Ga. 418, 419, 603 S.E.2d 249 (2004) (emphasis in original). Accord State v. Johnson, 292 Ga. 409, 410–411, 738 S.E.2d 86 (2013) ; State v. Caffee, 291 Ga. 31, 33, 728 S.E.2d 171 (2012). Thus, in Martin, we held that the State could not appeal the denial of its motion to recuse the trial judge, because OCGA § 5–7–1, at that time, did not list such orders as appealable by the State. See Martin, 278 Ga. at 419, 603 S.E.2d 249. Accord Ritter v. State, 269 Ga. 884, 885–886, 506 S.E.2d 857 (1998) ( ).
After our 2004 decision in Martin, the General Assembly amended OCGA § 5–7–1 in 2005 to permit the State to appeal "from an order, decision, or judgment denying a motion by the state to recuse or disqualify a judge made and ruled upon prior to the defendant being put in jeopardy. " See OCGA § 5–7–1(a)(9) (emphasis added); Ga. Law 2005, p. 20, § 3. Here, because the State did not file its motion to recuse until after appellees' convictions and shortly before the hearing on their motions for new trial, jeopardy had attached, and the State thus does not have a right to appeal under OCGA § 5–7–1. See Harvey v. State, 296 Ga. 823, 830, 770 S.E.2d 840 (2015) ( ). See also State v. Osborne, 330 Ga.App. 688, 689–690, 769 S.E.2d 115 (2015) ( ).
(b) The State argues that, even if its appeal of the recusal order is not proper under OCGA § 5–7–1(a)(9), this Court should nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over the State's appeal of that order under the collateral order doctrine.
Sosniak, 292 Ga. at 44 n. 4, 734 S.E.2d 362 (Nahmias, J., concurring).
As explained above, an order that satisfies the requirements of the collateral order doctrine is considered to be effectively final and would be appealable because it comes within the terms of a relevant statutory right to appeal final judgments. Here, OCGA § 5–7–1, which we have repeatedly held lists the types of trial court rulings that the State may appeal, see Johnson, 292 Ga. at 410–411, 738 S.E.2d 86, does not provide for appeals by the State from final judgments. Moreover, although OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(1) authorizes appeals from "all final judgments," the State has no right to appeal under OCGA § 5–6–34 or any other provision of the Appellate Practice Act, see OCGA §§ 5–6–30 to 5–6–51, "as that Act grants the right of appeal only to ‘either party in any civil case and the defendant in any criminal proceeding.’ " Smith, 268 Ga. at 76, 485 S.E.2d 491 (quoting OCGA § 5–6–33(a)(1) ). Further, OCGA § 5–6–33(b) says that "[t]his Code section shall not affect Chapter 7 of this title," showing that the General Assembly was well aware of the statutory scheme of appeals that it had created for the State and that it intended for the State's right to appeal to be governed by Chapter 7 of Title 5.
For these reasons, the State has no right to appeal the order denying its motion to recuse under the collateral order doctrine even if the order were determined to satisfy the requirements of the doctrine. Accord Osborne, 330 Ga.App. at 691–692, 769 S.E.2d 115 ( ).
(c) Finally, because there is no constitutional right to appeal, there is no merit to the State's argument that it violates its right to due process to deny it an opportunity to appeal the denial of its recusal motion. See Sosniak, 292 Ga. at 44 n. 4, 734 S.E.2d 362 (Nahmias, J., concurring); Smith, 268 Ga. at 75, 485 S.E.2d 491. See also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 323–24, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) ( ).
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the State's appeal of the trial court's order denying its motion to recuse.3
2. The State claims that the trial court erred in granting the appellees' motions for new trial based on the "general grounds." See OCGA §§ 5–5–20 and 5–5–21.4
(a) The State first argues that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the general grounds of appellees' motions for new trial before it heard evidence—which was relevant to appellees' claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel—at the motion for new trial hearing that was not presented to the jury. The State cites no authority for its proposed rule, and there is no such requirement in the statutory provisions that govern motions for new trial. See OCGA §§ 5–5–1 to 5–5–51. Further, the General Assembly has provided grounds for motions for new trial that do not require new evidence, see OCGA §§ 5–5–20and 5–5–21 (the general grounds), and some grounds that do or may require new evidence, see...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buckner-Webb v. State
...not apply to an order denying a motion to dismiss based on a defense of sovereign or quasi-judicial immunity); State v. Cash , 298 Ga. 90, 93 (1) (b), 779 S.E.2d 603 (2015) (holding that the collateral order doctrine did not apply to an order denying the State's motion to recuse the trial j......
-
State v. Rosenbaum, S18A1090
...§ 5-7-1 is to be construed strictly against the State. See, e.g., Andrade, 298 Ga. at 464, 782 S.E.2d 665, citing State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90, 91 (1) (a), 779 S.E.2d 603 (2015). To the extent that the statement that OCGA § 5-7-1 is to be construed liberally may be considered a holding and not......
-
Rivera v. Washington
...of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90, 92–93(1)(b), 779 S.E.2d 603 (2015) (Citations and punctuation omitted.). Thus, "an order that satisfies the requirements of the collateral order doctrine is......
-
Camden Cnty. v. Sweatt
...the County was not a party to the probate court proceedings, it had no right to appeal the Referendum Order. See State v. Cash , 298 Ga. 90, 93 (1) (b), 779 S.E.2d 603 (2015) ("[T]he Appellate Practice Act, see OCGA §§ 5-6-30 to 5-6-51 ... grants the right of appeal only to either party in ......
-
Local Government Law
...505, 672 S.E.2d 471 (2009).79. Rivera, 298 Ga. at 771-71, 784 S.E.2d at 776-77.80. Id. at 774, 784 S.E.2d at 778 (quoting State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90, 92-93, 779 S.E.2d 603, 605-06 (2015)).81. Id. at 775, 784 S.E.2d at 779.82. Id. at 776-77, 784 S.E.2d at 779-80.83. Id. at 777, 784 S.E.2d at ......