The State v. Outen.
| Decision Date | 21 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. S10G1596.,S10G1596. |
| Citation | 11 FCDR 2077,289 Ga. 579,714 S.E.2d 581,11 FCDR 1939 |
| Parties | The STATEv.OUTEN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kenneth W. Mauldin, District Attorney, Brian Vance Patterson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.Edward Hunt Brumby, Jr., Athens, for appellee.HINES, Justice.
This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in State v. Outen, 304 Ga.App. 203, 695 S.E.2d 654 (2010), in which that Court affirmed the grant of a special demurrer when the language of the indictment tracked the statutory language that defined the offense of first degree vehicular homicide predicated on reckless driving. However, having determined that there was no appellate jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals, we vacate that Court's judgment and remand the case to that Court for further proceedings.
After an automobile driven by David V. Outen struck and killed Trina Heard, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Outen. Count 1 closely tracked the language of the reckless driving statute and charged that, on March 21, 2007, “without malice aforethought and while driving a motor vehicle on West Broad Street, [Outen] unlawfully cause[d] the death of Trina Heard through the violation of O.C.G.A. § 40–6–490, Reckless Driving,” by driving “said motor vehicle on said roadway in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property.” See OCGA §§ 40–6–390(a), 40–6–393(a). Count 2 charged that, on March 21, 2007, Outen “did, without an intention to do so and while driving a motor vehicle on West Broad Street, unlawfully cause the death of Trina Heard by violating O.C.G.A. § 40–6–48, Failure to Maintain Lane,” in that, while driving on a roadway “which was divided into more than two clearly marked lanes for traffic, [he] fail[ed] to drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and did move from such lane without having first ascertained that such movement could be made with safety.” See OCGA §§ 40–6–48, 40–6–393(c).
Outen filed a special demurrer as to Count 1, “arguing that it provided insufficient detail to allow him to prepare his defense because it lacked any specific facts supporting the reckless driving allegation.” Outen, supra at 204, 695 S.E.2d 654. The trial court granted the motion, the State filed a notice of appeal from that order, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. However, doing so was error. Although no question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was raised in that Court, it is incumbent upon the appellate courts of this State to inquire into their own jurisdiction, regardless of whether an issue of jurisdiction is raised by the parties. In the Interest of K.R.S., 284 Ga. 853(1), 672 S.E.2d 622 (2009).
The ability of the State to appeal in a criminal case is governed by OCGA §§ 5–7–1 and 5–7–2. “ State v. Evans, 282 Ga. 63, 64, 646 S.E.2d 77 (2007). Under OCGA § 5–7–1(a)(1),
[a]n appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State of Georgia from the superior courts, state courts, City Court of Atlanta, and juvenile courts and such other courts from which a direct appeal is authorized to the Court of Appeals of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia in criminal cases and adjudication of delinquency cases in the following instances:
[f]rom an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act or any count thereof....
And, OCGA § 5–7–2 requires that
[o]ther than from an order, decision, or judgment sustaining a motion to suppress evidence illegally seized, in any appeal under this chapter where the order, decision, or judgment is not final, it shall be necessary that the trial judge certify within ten days of entry thereof that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that an immediate review should be had.
The trial court's order dismissing Count One of the indictment is not a final order; Count Two remains in the trial court. Accordingly, by the plain terms of OCGA § 5–7–2, a certificate of immediate review was required.
The requirement of OCGA § 5–7–2 will not be bypassed. “OCGA § 5–7–1 et seq. must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the interests of defendants. State v. Ware,
[282 Ga. 676, 678, 653 S.E.2d 21 (2007) ]
; State v. Martin, 278 Ga. 418, 419, 603 S.E.2d 249 (2004).” State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98, 103(2), 686 S.E.2d 244 (2009). The State did not secure the required certificate, and the order granting the special demurrer as to Count One is thus not appealable; the State's Ware, supra at 678, 653 S.E.2d 21.
We note that there are opinions issued by the Court of Appeals that state that when a trial court dismisses a single count of a multi-count indictment leaving the other counts pending, the order is “final” within the meaning of OCGA § 5–7–2. See, e.g., State v. Ramirez–Herrara, 306 Ga.App. 878, 879(1), 703 S.E.2d 429 (2010); State v. Barrett, 215 Ga.App. 401, 402 n. 1, 451 S.E.2d 82 (1994). However, these opinions rely upon State v. Tuzman, 145 Ga.App. 481, 482(1), 243 S.E.2d 675 (1978), which was wrongly decided. In Tuzman, 30 counts of a 41–count indictment were dismissed, and the State filed a notice of appeal to review that dismissal, despite the fact that 11 counts of the indictment remained pending in the trial court. Tuzman held that to apply OCGA § 5–7–2 when only a portion of a multi-count indictment is terminated would “reduce to a nullity the ‘any count thereof’ language of [OCGA § 5–7–1(a)(1) ].” 1 Id. However, this conclusion appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the functions of OCGA §§ 5–7–1 and 5–7–2. OCGA § 5–7–1 does not grant the State a right of direct appeal from the orders and judgments listed therein, it only declares in what instances an appeal may be taken. Rather, it is the role of OCGA § 5–7–2 to guide by what procedures an appeal may be had; OCGA § 5–7–1's only reference to “direct appeal” is in defining the classes of courts from whose orders the State may appeal.2 See also State v. Martin, 278 Ga. 418, 419, 603 S.E.2d 249 (2004). (“ OCGA § 5–7–2 ... describes which [matters listed in OCGA § 5–7–1] are appealable by direct appeal and which are appealable by discretionary appeal.”)
We note that in at least two instances, this Court has addressed an appeal in which the State has filed a notice of appeal from an order dismissing some counts of an indictment, but with at least one count remaining in the trial court. See State v. Jones, 274 Ga. 287, 553 S.E.2d 612 (2001), State v. Mills, 268 Ga. 873, 495 S.E.2d 1 (1998). However, in those cases, “we did not rule on this Court's jurisdiction [and], no binding precedent was established.” Heard v. State, 274 Ga. 196, 197(1), 552 S.E.2d 818 (2001). See also Gordy Tire Co. v. Dayton Rubber Co., 216 Ga. 83, 89(1), 114 S.E.2d 529 (1960) .
It was error for the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court; the appeal should have been dismissed by that Court. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.
All the Justices concur.
FN1. Tuzman was actually faced with a trial court order granting a plea in bar as to some counts of the indictment, which is listed in OCGA § 5–7–1(a)(3), not OCGA § 5–7–1(a)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seals v. State
...dismissing one count of a two-count indictment was not a final order where the other count was pending below. See State v. Outen , 289 Ga. 579, 581, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011) (holding that the State's appeal should have been dismissed because it did not follow the interlocutory procedures provi......
-
Owens v. Hill
...755 (2012) (addressing the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection on direct appeal). See State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579, 582, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011) (holding that jurisdictional issues not discussed on appeal in one case do not constitute precedent in later cases regarding......
-
State v. Vickers
...not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Outen , 289 Ga. 579, 582, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011).The trial court's conclusion that the officers failed to obtain a warrant and entered the curtilage without consent or e......
-
State v. Walker
...cautioned that our decisions stand only for the points raised by the parties and decided by the court. See, e.g., State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011) ; Palmer v. State, 282 Ga. 466, 651 S.E.2d 86 (2007). “Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the atten......
-
Criminal Law
...or obstruct the prosecution of another, which is a required element of proof for the offense. Id. at 516, 712 S.E.2d at 839.88. 289 Ga. 579, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011).89. Id. at 579, 714 S.E.2d at 582.90. Id. at 579-80, 714 S.E.2d at 582.91. Id. at 579, 714 S.E.2d at 582. 92. O.C.G.A § 5-7-1 (1......
-
Ding Dong! the Count Is Dead, or Is It?: Criminal Defendants May Not Directly Appeal Convictions if Unresolved Counts Are on the Dead Docket
...571 S.E.2d 806 (2002).28. Id. at 681, 571 S.E.2d at 808.29. Id.30. Id. at 681, 571 S.E.2d at 807-08.31. Id. at 681, 571 S.E.2d at 808.32. 289 Ga. 579, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011).33. O.C.G.A. § 5-7-2 (2021).34. Id. 35. "In a special demurrer, a defendant claims that the charges in the indictment ......