Georgia Court of Appeals, 2018

Joseph Marvin Pinckney v. State

Joseph Marvin Pinckney v. State
Georgia Court of Appeals · Decided June 26, 2018

Joseph Marvin Pinckney v. State

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ June 26, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A18A1696. JOSEPH MARVIN PINCKNEY v. THE STATE.

Joseph Marvin Pinckney, who has been charged with burglary, theft by taking, and theft by receiving stolen property, filed a plea in bar arguing that the indictment was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied Pinckney’s motion, and he filed this appeal.

As a general rule, a right of direct appeal lies from a final judgment; that is, where the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). The Supreme Court has created limited exceptions to this rule, including where a criminal defendant seeks review of a trial court order denying his plea in bar based on statutory speedy trial or double jeopardy claims. See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 (333 SE2d 827) (1985) (statutory speedy trial); Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875 (287 SE2d 7) (1982) (double jeopardy). However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend these limited exceptions. See Crane v. State, 281 Ga. 635, 636 (641 SE2d 795) (2007) (defendant may not directly appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 16-3-24.2). Here, Pinckney’s motion was not based on either a statutory speedy trial claim or a double jeopardy claim. Accordingly, he was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures to obtain appellate review at this time. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 This premature appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/26/2018 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.

Pickney has also filed an application for interlocutory review of the same order. This Court dismissed that application as untimely. See Case No. A18I0239.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.