Court Filings

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in A26A1231 because the appellant failed to comply with the Court's docketing notice and Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) by not filing an enumeration of errors and brief within the required time. The court had given a specific deadline of March 27, 2026, after an earlier order on March 17, 2026, but the appellant did not file the required documents. For these procedural violations, the Court concluded the appeal was abandoned and ordered it dismissed.

The Court of Appeals dismissed a direct discretionary appeal from a magistrate-court dispossessory judgment because it lacks jurisdiction. After the magistrate court granted Star Borrower SFR6 LP a writ of possession on March 11, 2026, defendants filed this application for discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals. The court explained that appeals from magistrate courts are ordinarily taken by a new (de novo) appeal to the state or superior court under OCGA § 15-10-41(b)(1), and therefore the Court of Appeals may review such matters only after that intermediate review. The filing was transferred to the magistrate court for transmission to the state or superior court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the appellant Star Venture Auto, LLC’s motion to withdraw its appeal in the case against Jacquelyn Taylor. By granting the motion, the appellate court released jurisdiction back to the trial court effective upon receipt of the order. The decision is procedural: the court did not address the merits of the underlying dispute but approved dismissal of the appeal and returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings or finalization there.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by Demarcus Davis from a final divorce judgment entered January 6, 2026. The court held that appeals in domestic relations cases must be brought by application for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2). Davis filed only a notice of appeal and asked the court to treat it as a discretionary application, but the court found that compliance with the discretionary-appeal procedure is jurisdictional. Because Davis did not file the required application, the court granted Young Seon Jo’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Jeffrey A. Swiecicki’s pro se appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Swiecicki appealed a February 6, 2026 magistrate’s decision, but the court determined the decision was not a final, appealable order because the trial court had not yet adopted the magistrate’s decision or entered judgment disposing of all claims. Under Ohio law, only a judge’s final order is appealable; magistrate decisions remain interlocutory until the trial court acts. The court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss and noted the appellant may appeal after a final judgment is entered in the trial court.

The Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal by Shiviez Montrel Howard from his conviction in Butler County Common Pleas. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist but identified two potential arguable errors and sought permission to withdraw. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no prejudicial error or infringement of appellant's rights, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal as wholly frivolous. The court ordered the trial-court mandate issued and costs taxed to appellant.

The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed Jeremy Richards’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging three pending criminal cases. The court held his claims (false arrest, police and prosecutorial misconduct, due-process violations, double jeopardy, and judicial bias) are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and the petition had multiple procedural defects: failure to attach commitment papers, naming an improper respondent (a judge), and failing to provide the required inmate account certification. Because of these substantive and procedural deficiencies, the court dismissed the petition sua sponte and ordered Richards to pay costs.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by E. Marcellus Windhom challenging the trial court’s November 19, 2025 order that dismissed his motion for leave to file an out-of-time motion for new trial. Windhom filed his notice of appeal on February 12, 2026, 85 days after the order, but Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days. Because timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted discretionary review of Akeno Reid’s challenge to trial-court orders denying his motions to vacate child support and contempt orders. After reviewing the full record and a related earlier appeal (A25A0917), the Court concluded that granting review was improvident and dismissed Reid’s appeal. The court did not address the merits of Reid’s claims and instead ended the appeal because discretionary review was inappropriate under the circumstances.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Tommy Martin’s direct appeal of a trial court order denying his motion to confirm service and reinstate a child support enforcement case because the court lacked jurisdiction. Georgia law requires appeals in domestic relations matters, including child support collection, to proceed by application for discretionary review. Martin used a direct appeal rather than the required discretionary-review procedure, and that failure is jurisdictional, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Mulbahs' application for discretionary review in a dispossessory (eviction) case because it was untimely. After the magistrate ruled for defendant KL Capital, LLC, the Mulbahs sought review in superior court; that court dismissed their petition on 2026-02-12 and denied reconsideration on 2026-03-04. The Mulbahs filed for discretionary review on 2026-03-09, but Georgia law requires such appeals in dispossessory actions to be filed within seven days of the judgment, and a reconsideration motion does not extend that deadline. Because timeliness is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the application.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by the mother of minor J. G. challenging a juvenile court order that terminated her parental rights. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the mother failed to file the required application for discretionary review under Georgia law. The opinion cites the statute and precedent establishing that compliance with the discretionary-review procedure is jurisdictional, so dismissal — not a decision on the merits of the termination — was required.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed two Parma Municipal Court matters involving Michael C. Dunn. One case (drug charges) resulted in acquittal at trial, so the appeal is dismissed as moot. The court affirmed Dunn’s convictions for multiple traffic violations in the related traffic case. The appellate court held the municipal court had personal jurisdiction over Dunn because he was arrested, arraigned, and voluntarily continued to participate in proceedings, and it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the alleged infractions occurred in Broadview Heights and the traffic ticket satisfied rule requirements.

The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a disciplinary complaint against Judge John W. Rudduck arising from his personal Facebook activity endorsing his son’s campaign and defending him online. The Board of Professional Conduct had found violations of several judicial-conduct rules and recommended a public reprimand, but the Court held that Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) — the rule prohibiting judges from publicly endorsing candidates for other offices — is a content-based restriction on political speech that fails strict scrutiny and therefore violates the First Amendment. Because the finding under Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 relied on the invalidated rule, and the Court also found no violation of Jud.Cond.R. 1.3, the complaint was dismissed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Reginald Harvey’s application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s December 30, 2025 denial of his motion to correct sentence because the application was filed beyond the 30-day statutory deadline. Harvey had been convicted in 2016 and previously sentenced as a recidivist; he sought to challenge that sentence as void. The court held it lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely discretionary applications under OCGA § 5-6-35(d) and relevant precedent, so Harvey’s March 10, 2026 filing (70 days after the order) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that discretionary review was not appropriate in William Paul Bradley, Jr.’s case. The court concluded that granting the application for discretionary appeal was improvident and therefore dismissed the appeal. This order ends this Court of Appeals proceeding without addressing the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Payne’s appeal as a nullity because the appellant, Wesley Payne, had died before substitution of the estate occurred, and Georgia law treats further proceedings as void as to a deceased party until someone is substituted. The trial court had dismissed the case for discovery violations after Payne’s death; the appellate court held that actions taken after his death are void as to him. The court remanded for the trial court to resolve pending motions to substitute the estate and, if appropriate, to reconsider defendants’ dismissal motions.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the record in Anderson v. Anderson and determined the case was not suitable for discretionary review. The court concluded that granting the appeal was improvident and therefore dismissed the appeal. The order is a short procedural disposition without discussion of the underlying merits of the parties' dispute.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jesse James Larson’s direct appeal from a trial court divorce decree because Georgia law requires appeals in divorce matters to be pursued by application for discretionary review. The court explained that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure under OCGA § 5-6-35 is jurisdictional, cited prior decisions applying that rule, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits. The dismissal leaves the trial court decree in place unless the appellant pursues the correct discretionary-review procedure if timely available.