Jamar Cedric Thomas v. State - Case Dismissed
Summary
The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal of Jamar Cedric Thomas v. State due to a lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was based on Thomas's failure to follow the proper interlocutory appeal procedure after his motion to suppress was denied.
What changed
The Georgia Court of Appeals has dismissed the direct appeal filed by Jamar Cedric Thomas in his case against the State. The dismissal stems from Thomas's failure to adhere to the correct procedural requirements for an interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. Specifically, while a certificate of immediate review was obtained, a timely application for interlocutory appeal was not filed with the Court of Appeals, thereby divesting the court of jurisdiction.
This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedure in Georgia. Legal professionals representing parties in similar situations must ensure that all deadlines and filing requirements for interlocutory appeals are met. Failure to do so, as demonstrated in this case, will result in the dismissal of the appeal, leaving the trial court's decision on the motion to suppress as the operative order.
What to do next
- Review appellate procedure for interlocutory appeals in Georgia.
- Ensure timely filing of applications for interlocutory appeal when required.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Jamar Cedric Thomas v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: A26A1360
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition
Dismissed
Combined Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
March 23, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26A1360. JAMAR CEDRIC THOMAS v. THE STATE.
On January 9, 2026, the trial court entered an order denying Jamar Cedric
Thomas’s motion to suppress, and on January 18, 2026, the trial court issued a
certificate of immediate review. On February 9, 2026, Thomas filed a notice of appeal,
seeking to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.1 We lack jurisdiction over this
direct appeal.
Under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1), direct appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll
final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court
below[.]” An order denying the motion to suppress is not a final appealable decision
within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34(a). Accordingly, Thomas was required to
follow the interlocutory appeal procedure outlined in OCGA § 5-6-34(b) by obtaining
a certificate of immediate review from the trial court within ten days and filing a timely
application for interlocutory appeal in this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-34(b); Court of
Appeals Rule 30. Although Thomas did obtain a timely certificate of immediate
review, he did not file a timely application for interlocutory appeal and obtain an order
1
On that same day, the trial court entered a second certificate of immediate
review, nunc pro tunc to February 6, 2026, after Thomas moved the trial court to
“correct” the certificate to reflect the date the defense received actual notice.
Thomas then filed an application for interlocutory appeal on February 13, 2026, which
this Court dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within ten days of January
18, 2026 certificate of immediate review. See Case No. A26I0140 (dismissed March
13, 2026).
from this Court granting him the right to file a direct appeal. Thomas’s failure to do
so deprives this Court of jurisdiction of this appeal, which is accordingly
DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
03/23/2026
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.
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when GA Court of Appeals Opinions publishes new changes.