What did the Court decide?

The Court dismissed Neal’s interlocutory appeal because the trial court failed to issue the required certificate of immediate review within ten days of its December 22 order, so the appellate court had no jurisdiction.

Who is affected by this decision?

Calvin Neal (the defendant) and the State in the underlying criminal case are directly affected because the dismissal prevents immediate appellate review of the denial of the motion to suppress.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

This dismissal is based on lack of jurisdiction under state statutory timing requirements; the proper remedy is for the trial court to correct the certificate timing rather than appealing this dismissal.

Calvin Lewis Neal v. State

Docket A26I0165

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealDismissed

Filed: Apr 6, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: A26I0165

Interlocutory application to the Court of Appeals challenging a trial court order denying a motion to suppress after reconsideration

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory application by defendant Calvin Lewis Neal challenging a trial court’s December 22, 2025 order that vacated a prior suppression ruling and denied his motion to suppress. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was not entered within ten days of the December 22 order as required by OCGA § 5-6-34(b). The Court explained the ten-day certificate requirement is jurisdictional and instructed the trial court on how to allow interlocutory review (vacate and re-enter the order and then promptly issue a certificate).

Issues Decided

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal when the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was not entered within ten days of the order under OCGA § 5-6-34(b).
Whether the ten-day certificate requirement of OCGA § 5-6-34(b) is jurisdictional.

Court's Reasoning

The Court held that OCGA § 5-6-34(b) requires a trial court to enter a certificate of immediate review within ten days of the order to confer interlocutory jurisdiction, and those timing requirements are jurisdictional. Because the certificate here was not entered within ten days of the December 22 order, the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Neal’s application. The Court therefore dismissed the application and explained how the trial court could cure the defect by vacating and re-entering the order and promptly issuing a new certificate.

Authorities Cited

OCGA § 5-6-34(b)
Settendown Public Utility v. Waterscape Utility324 Ga. App. 652 (2013)

Parties

Appellant: Calvin Lewis Neal
Appellee: The State
Judge: Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Key Dates

Underlying criminal case pending since: 2019-09-01
Trial court original suppression order granting motion: 2022-12-01
Trial court reconsideration order vacating prior order and denying motion to suppress: 2025-12-22
First certificate of immediate review entered: 2026-01-08
Court of Appeals dismissal of first application (Case No. A26I0114): 2026-02-03
Court of Appeals order dismissing second application: 2026-04-06

What You Should Do Next

1
Request trial court to vacate and re-enter the December 22 order
Move in the superior court to have the trial court vacate and re-enter its December 22, 2025 order so a new ten-day clock for a certificate of immediate review will run.
2
Ask the trial court to issue a certificate of immediate review promptly
If the order is re-entered, request the trial court to issue the certificate within ten days to preserve interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.
3
Prepare for alternate preservation of suppression issue
If the trial court does not re-enter the order, prepare to preserve the suppression issue for appeal following final judgment and consult counsel about strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Court decide?: The Court dismissed Neal’s interlocutory appeal because the trial court failed to issue the required certificate of immediate review within ten days of its December 22 order, so the appellate court had no jurisdiction.
Who is affected by this decision?: Calvin Neal (the defendant) and the State in the underlying criminal case are directly affected because the dismissal prevents immediate appellate review of the denial of the motion to suppress.
What happens next in the case?: The trial court can allow interlocutory review by vacating and re-entering its December 22 order and issuing a new certificate of immediate review within ten days of that new order; otherwise Neal’s route is to proceed in the trial court and raise suppression issues on final appeal.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: This dismissal is based on lack of jurisdiction under state statutory timing requirements; the proper remedy is for the trial court to correct the certificate timing rather than appealing this dismissal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 06, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26I0165. CALVIN LEWIS NEAL v. THE STATE.

This application for interlocutory appeal arises out of a criminal case that has
been pending against Calvin Lewis Neal since September 2019. In December 2022,
the trial court entered an order granting Neal’s motion to suppress evidence against
him discovered during an allegedly illegal detention. The State filed a timely motion
for reconsideration, and on December 22, 2025, the trial court entered an order
granting that motion, vacating its prior order, and denying Neal’s motion to suppress.
The trial court entered its first certificate of immediate review on January 8,
2026. Neal then filed an interlocutory application from the December 22 order, but
we dismissed the application because the certificate was not filed within 10 days of the
order. See Case No. A26I0114 (Feb. 3, 2026). We explained that Neal’s remedy was
to petition the superior court to vacate and re-enter the order at issue.
The trial court then vacated and re-entered the certificate of immediate review,
and Neal has filed a second application from the trial court’s December 22 order.
However, we again lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-34(b), a party may seek
interlocutory review only if the trial court enters its certificate within ten days of the
order sought to be appealed. The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b) are
jurisdictional. Settendown Pub. Utility v. Waterscape Utility, 324 Ga. App. 652, 653 (751
SE2d 463) (2013). Consequently, because the second certificate of immediate review
was not entered within ten days of the December 22 order, we are without jurisdiction
to consider this application.
To clarify, if the trial court wants to allow for interlocutory review, it should:
(1) vacate and re-enter its December 22 order granting the State’s motion for
reconsideration and denying Neal’s motion to suppress; and (2) issue a new certificate
of immediate review within 10 days of the new order.
For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is
hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/06/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.