Marvin Hillman, III v. State
Docket A26D0431
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Georgia
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- A26D0431
Discretionary application to the Court of Appeals seeking review of denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial following a 2008 criminal conviction
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed Marvin Hillman III’s discretionary application challenging the denial of his 2025 extraordinary motion for a new trial because the application was untimely. Hillman sought review of the trial court’s December 17, 2025 order but filed his discretionary application to this Court on March 20, 2026, which was 93 days after the order. The Court held it lacks jurisdiction where a discretionary application is not filed within the 30-day period required by OCGA § 5-6-35(d), and therefore dismissed the application for failure to comply with the statute's jurisdictional deadline.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to consider a discretionary application filed more than 30 days after the entry of the order being appealed
- Whether OCGA § 5-6-35(d)'s filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus fatal to an untimely application
Court's Reasoning
OCGA § 5-6-35(d) requires a discretionary application to be filed within 30 days of the order being appealed, and the Court treats that deadline as jurisdictional. Because Hillman filed his discretionary application 93 days after the trial court’s December 17, 2025 order, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Prior authority treating the statute as jurisdictional (Boyle v. State) supports dismissal for failure to comply with the statutory deadline.
Authorities Cited
- OCGA § 5-6-35(d)
- Boyle v. State190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989)
Parties
- Appellant
- Marvin Hillman, III
- Appellee
- The State
- Judge
- Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Key Dates
- Original conviction year
- 2008-01-01
- Trial court denial of extraordinary motion for new trial
- 2025-12-17
- Dismissal of direct appeal for failure to file discretionary application
- 2026-03-10
- Discretionary application filed with Court of Appeals
- 2026-03-20
- Court of Appeals order dismissing application
- 2026-04-06
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult a criminal defense attorney promptly
An attorney can review whether any other timely postconviction remedies remain available, including federal habeas relief if state remedies are exhausted, or whether any statutory exceptions apply.
- 2
Verify all filing deadlines and procedural options
Confirm whether there are alternative motions, appeals, or petitions that were not time-barred and prepare them within the applicable deadlines.
- 3
Consider requesting reinstatement or equitable relief only if statutory basis exists
If any narrow statutory or equitable grounds allow for tolling or reinstatement of the right to appeal, gather evidence and legal argument to support such a request with counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Hillman’s discretionary application because it was filed too late and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Marvin Hillman III is affected because his challenge to the denial of a new-trial motion will not be considered by the Court of Appeals due to the missed deadline.
- What does this mean for Hillman’s criminal conviction?
- The dismissal means the Court of Appeals will not review the trial court’s denial; Hillman’s conviction and sentence remain in place unless he pursues another timely, available avenue for relief.
- Can Hillman still appeal or get relief?
- Possibly, but he would need to identify a different, timely procedural vehicle (for example, filing any allowable postconviction remedies consistent with deadlines) or seek relief in a court with proper jurisdiction; he should consult counsel promptly.
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:
A26D0431. MARVIN HILLMAN, III v. THE STATE.
Following a jury trial, Marvin Hillman, III, was convicted in 2008 of two counts
of armed robbery and related crimes. He received a total sentence of life
imprisonment. We affirmed on direct appeal. See Hillman v. State, Case No.
A08A1956 (Feb. 26, 2009).
In 2025, Hillman filed an extraordinary motion for new trial, contending that
a key prosecution witness had recanted his trial testimony. The trial court denied the
extraordinary motion for new trial on December 17, 2025. Hillman filed a direct appeal
to this Court, which we dismissed for failure to file a discretionary application. See
Case No. A26A1285 (Mar. 10, 2026). On March 20, 2026, Hillman filed a
discretionary application to this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed with this Court within
30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35(d). The
requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an
application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App.
734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Hillman filed his application in this Court 93
days after the trial court’s order and is thus untimely.
Accordingly, this application 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.