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.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Mario R. Sullivan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A26A0046

• Disposition: Vacated & Remanded With Direction

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.4K)

• PDF

Disposition

Vacated & Remanded With Direction

Combined Opinion

FIRST DIVISION
BROWN, C. J.,
BARNES, P. J., and WATKINS, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

February 26, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A26A0046. SULLIVAN v. THE STATE.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

Proceeding pro se, Mario Sullivan appeals from the trial court’s order denying

his motion for an out-of-time appeal from the judgment of conviction entered on his

guilty plea. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the trial court’s order and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1

In 2015, Sullivan pled guilty to burglary, armed robbery, impersonating an

officer, false imprisonment, and two counts of aggravated assault. He subsequently

1
Sullivan’s “Motion for Out-of-Time Post Conviction Relief,” “Notice of
Uncontested Brief and Motion for Relief,” “Motion to Strike Untimely Appellee
Brief,” “Motion to Remand for Completion of the Record,” “Motion to Correct
Clerical Errors in the Record,” and “Motion to Require Correction of Record” are
denied.
filed a petition for habeas corpus relief that was denied in 2019.2 Sullivan thereafter

filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court denied in July 2021. We

later dismissed Sullivan’s direct appeal from the trial court’s July 2021 order as

untimely.

In June 2025, Sullivan filed a new motion for an out-of-time appeal. Five days

later and before the State responded, the trial court denied Sullivan’s motion pursuant

to Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471 (870 SE2d 758) (2022), which abolished the judicially

created procedure for criminal defendants to obtain an out-of-time appeal in the trial

court. This direct appeal followed.

1. The State contends that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, but we disagree

in light of recent changes in the law. While Cook eliminated the procedure for

obtaining an out-of-time appeal, the General Assembly revived the procedure by

statute, effective May 14, 2025, before Sullivan filed the motion at issue here. See

OCGA § 5-6-39.1;3 Ga. L. 2025, p. 621, § 1-3. Neither OCGA § 5-6-39.1 nor the

2
Sullivan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the order entered by the
habeas court are not included in the appellate record.
3
OCGA § 5-6-39.1 provides:
(a)(1) Notwithstanding the availability of habeas corpus relief
under Article 2 of Chapter 14 of Title 9; the time limitations set forth in
2
discretionary appeal statute, OCGA § 5-6-35, requires a defendant to file an

application for discretionary appeal to obtain review of the denial of a motion for an

out-of-time appeal under the current statutory scheme. Moreover, prior to Cook, our

Code Section 5-5-40; or the time limitations related to a notice of appeal
as set forth in this article, a defendant may move for leave to file an
out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of appeal within 100 days from
the expiration of the time period for the filing of such motion or notice:
(A) With the consent of the state;
(B) By showing excusable neglect;
(C) By showing that the failure to timely file such motion
for new trial or notice of appeal was attributable to the deficient
performance of such defendant’s counsel; or
(D) For other good cause shown.
(2) The trial court judge shall have jurisdiction to consider such
motion for leave to file an out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of
appeal. If the judge grants such motion, the defendant shall have 30 days
to file an out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of appeal and the
judge shall have the discretion to allow an extension of time for filing
such motion or notice as set forth in Code Section 5-6-39.
(3) An indigent defendant shall have the right to the assistance of
counsel to seek any relief offered under this Code section.
(b) In a criminal case, after a judgment of conviction, a defendant
whose motion seeking an out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of
appeal or whose granted out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of
appeal was dismissed based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Cook
v. State, 313 Ga. 471 (2022), and its progeny, shall have the right to move
for leave to file an out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of appeal
until June 30, 2026, pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section. Any
filing made pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to the 100-day
time limitation in subsection (a) of this Code section.
3
Supreme Court held that “[t]he denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal is directly

appealable when the criminal conviction at issue has not undergone appellate review.”

Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191 (563 SE2d 856) (2002). Accordingly, we conclude

that Sullivan was entitled to directly appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion

for an out-of-time appeal.

1. The State also argues that Sullivan’s appeal should be dismissed because the

State was not served with his notice of appeal or appellant’s brief. However, failure

to perfect service of the notice and brief is not a statutorily recognized ground for

dismissal. See OCGA § 5-6-48(a) (“Failure of any party to perfect service of any

notice or other paper hereunder shall not work dismissal; but the trial and appellate

courts shall at any stage of the proceeding require that parties be served in such

manner as will permit a just and expeditious determination of the appeal and shall,

when necessary, grant such continuance as may be required under the

circumstances.”). Moreover, the State was granted an extension of time to file its brief

once the defect in service came to light and was afforded a full opportunity to review

and respond to Sullivan’s brief. We therefore discern no basis for dismissal. See Miller

v. Ingles Mkt., 214 Ga. App. 817, 818 (449 SE2d 166) (1994) (noting that “failure to

4
notify appellee of the filing of a notice of appeal is not grounds for dismissal of [the]

appeal, OCGA § 5-6-48(a)”); Petroleum Carrier Corp. of Fla. v. Jones, 127 Ga. App.

676, 678 (1) (a) (194 SE2d 670) (1972) (denying motion to dismiss appeal where,

among other things, the party who was not properly served nevertheless fully briefed

the merits of the appeal and thus did not suffer any harm).

1. We agree with Sullivan that the trial court erred in relying on Cook rather

than analyzing his new motion for an out-of-time appeal under OCGA § 5-6-39.1. As

noted above, the effective date of OCGA § 5-6-39.1 was May 14, 2025, prior to

Sullivan filing his motion, and thus that statute should have guided the trial court’s

analysis. See Ga. L. 2025, p. 621, § 1-3. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order

and remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of Sullivan’s motion in light

of the framework laid out in OCGA § 5-6-39.1. See Jones v. State,__ Ga. _, _ (921

SE2d 708) (2025). We express no opinion as to whether Sullivan has satisfied the

criteria for relief under OCGA § 5-6-39.1 and instead leave that question for the trial

5
court to resolve in the first instance.4

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Brown, C. J., and Watkins,

J., concur.

4
While the State argues on appeal that Sullivan’s motion fails to satisfy the
requirements of OCGA § 5-6-39.1 and is barred for additional reasons, we decline to
address those arguments because they were not raised in the trial court. See Shumate
v. State, 372 Ga. App. 807, 819(2) (906 SE2d 885) (2024) (“It is well established that
we cannot affirm as ‘right for any reason’ on the basis of a reason that was not raised
below.”).
6