What did the Court of Appeals decide?

The court dismissed Harvey’s application for discretionary appeal because it was filed after the 30-day deadline, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review it.

Who is affected by this decision?

Reginald Harvey is directly affected; the decision means his challenge to the sentence was not considered on the merits by the Court of Appeals.

Does this decision address whether his sentence was improper?

No. The court did not rule on the merits of the claim that his recidivist sentence was improper; it dismissed the appeal solely for being untimely.

Can Harvey still seek relief?

Possibly, but options are limited; he may consider other post-conviction remedies or motions in the trial court if permitted, or seek leave to file in another appropriate forum, but the Court of Appeals cannot hear the untimely application.

Reginald Harvey v. State

Docket A26D0419

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

Criminal AppealDismissed

Filed: Apr 1, 2026 · 1 month ago
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: A26D0419

Application for discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals from denial of a motion to correct sentence in a criminal case

Summary

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.

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 Harvey’s untimely filing of a discretionary application requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning

OCGA § 5-6-35(d) requires discretionary applications to be filed within 30 days of the order being appealed, and that deadline is jurisdictional. The Court relied on its own precedent and prior cases (e.g., Boyle v. State and In the Interest of B. R. F.) that an appellate court cannot accept an application that does not comply with that statutory deadline. Because Harvey’s application was filed 70 days after the order, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Authorities Cited

OCGA § 5-6-35(d)
Boyle v. State190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989)
In the Interest of B. R. F.299 Ga. 294 (788 SE2d 416) (2016)

Parties

Appellant: Reginald Harvey
Appellee: The State
Court: Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Key Dates

Original conviction year: 2016-01-01
Prior appellate decision affirming convictions: 2018-01-01
Motion to correct sentence filed: 2025-09-01
Trial court denial of motion to correct sentence: 2025-12-30
Discretionary application filed with Court of Appeals: 2026-03-10
Court of Appeals dismissal order date: 2026-04-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult post-conviction counsel
Contact an attorney experienced in criminal post-conviction relief to evaluate remaining procedural options and any potential bases for relief despite the untimely appeal.
2
Consider filing alternative remedies
Explore whether any other motions, habeas petitions, or collateral remedies remain available in state or federal courts and the deadlines and jurisdictional rules that apply.
3
Review trial-court record and orders
Have counsel review the trial and post-conviction records to determine whether any procedural exceptions or statutory mechanisms could toll or excuse the late filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Court of Appeals decide?: The court dismissed Harvey’s application for discretionary appeal because it was filed after the 30-day deadline, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review it.
Who is affected by this decision?: Reginald Harvey is directly affected; the decision means his challenge to the sentence was not considered on the merits by the Court of Appeals.
Does this decision address whether his sentence was improper?: No. The court did not rule on the merits of the claim that his recidivist sentence was improper; it dismissed the appeal solely for being untimely.
Can Harvey still seek relief?: Possibly, but options are limited; he may consider other post-conviction remedies or motions in the trial court if permitted, or seek leave to file in another appropriate forum, but the Court of Appeals cannot hear the untimely application.

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 01, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0419. REGINALD HARVEY v. THE STATE.

In 2016, Reginald Harvey was convicted of burglary and theft by taking and was
sentenced as a recidivist to 25 years without parole. This Court affirmed Harvey’s
convictions and in doing so, we rejected Harvey’s argument that the trial court erred
in sentencing him as a recidivist. Harvey v. State, 344 Ga. App. 761, 773–74(3) (811
SE2d 479) (2018). Harvey has since filed several post-conviction challenges to his
conviction and sentence, each of which was denied. In September 2025, Harvey filed
a motion to correct his sentence alleging that he had been improperly sentenced as a
recidivist, and therefore his sentence was void. The trial court denied that motion on
December 30, 2025 and, seeking to appeal that order, Harvey filed the current
application for discretionary appeal on March 10, 2026. We lack jurisdiction.
A discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the
order, decision, or judgment sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). This
statutory deadline is jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for
appeal not made in compliance with OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App.
734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). See also In the Interest of B. R. F., 299 Ga. 294, 298
(788 SE2d 416) (2016) (an appellate court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely
application for discretionary appeal).

Harvey’s application, which was filed 70 days after entry of the order he seeks to
appeal, is untimely. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to consider the
application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/01/2026
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.