Marvin Hillman III v. State - Discretionary Application Dismissed
Summary
The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Marvin Hillman III's discretionary application as untimely. Hillman filed his application 93 days after the trial court's order denying his extraordinary motion for new trial, exceeding the 30-day statutory requirement under OCGA § 5-6-35(d). The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the filing deadline is jurisdictional.
What changed
The Court of Appeals dismissed Hillman's discretionary application for failure to comply with OCGA § 5-6-35(d), which requires such applications to be filed within 30 days of the order being appealed. Hillman's application was filed 93 days late. The court cited Boyle v. State for the principle that the requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
This dismissal affects only Hillman's ability to pursue his extraordinary motion for new trial based on witness recantation. It has no broader regulatory implications and does not establish new precedent. Other criminal defendants in Georgia should be aware that discretionary applications to the Court of Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the trial court order to preserve appellate rights.
Archived snapshot
Apr 7, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
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.
April 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Marvin Hillman, III v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: A26D0431
Disposition: Discretionary Application Dismissed
Disposition
Discretionary Application Dismissed
Combined Opinion
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.
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for GA Court of Appeals Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from GA Court of Appeals.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when GA Court of Appeals Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.