Georgia Court of Appeals, 2025

Tzvi Strauss v. State

Tzvi Strauss v. State
Georgia Court of Appeals · Decided January 23, 2025

Tzvi Strauss v. State

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ January 23, 2025 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A25D0191. TZVI STRAUSS v. THE STATE.

Tzvi Strauss was arrested for violating the terms and conditions of his probation and, apparently, for new felony charges. Strauss filed a pro se motion for bond, which the trial court denied. Strauss now seeks discretionary review of the trial court’s order.

We lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), 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[.]”

Here, however, the order Strauss seeks to appeal is not a final judgment as the case remains pending in the trial court. Consequently, Strauss was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a timely certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to appeal the order denying his request for pretrial bond. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Mullinax v. State, 271 Ga. 112, 112 (1) (515 SE2d 839) (1999); Howard v. State, 194 Ga. App. 857, 857 (392 SE2d 562) (1990).

Notably, Strauss has not provided a certificate of immediate review from the trial court with his application materials.

Although Strauss filed an application for discretionary appeal, as described in OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); see also Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016) (“‘[W]hen the order appealed from is an interlocutory order, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction unless the procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) for interlocutory appeal is followed.’”).

Accordingly, Strauss’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Mullinax, 271 Ga. at 112 (1); Howard, 194 Ga. App. at 857.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 01/23/2025 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.

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