Rouzan v. State

Seth Rouzan was convicted of malice murder in Richmond County. His case had already bounced back and forth between the trial court and the Supreme Court of Georgia twice over whether certain other-acts evidence was properly admitted. After the trial court finally re-entered his conviction, Rouzan's lawyer missed the deadline to file a new notice of appeal, so Rouzan asked the trial court for an out-of-time appeal, essentially permission to appeal late because of his lawyer's mistake, and the trial court granted it. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided a different case, Cook v. State, ruling that trial courts never had legal authority to grant out-of-time appeals at all. Applying that new rule here, the court vacated the trial court's order granting Rouzan's late appeal and sent the case back so the trial court can dismiss the motion instead. The court noted Rouzan may still be able to raise his lost-appeal problem through a habeas corpus petition.

Under the court's recent decision in Cook v. State, trial courts have no legal authority to rule on motions for out-of-time appeal, so any such motion must be dismissed rather than decided, and the trial court's order granting Rouzan's motion must be vacated and the motion dismissed on remand.

The decision confirms that Georgia trial courts can no longer grant out-of-time appeals, meaning defendants whose lawyers miss appeal deadlines must instead pursue habeas corpus, a more complex process with its own deadlines and limits on repeat filings.

Vacated and remanded with direction to dismiss the motion

1. The court explained that in Cook v. State, decided shortly before this order, it eliminated the judicially created practice of trial courts ruling on motions for an out-of-time appeal, a mechanism that let defendants ask to appeal late because of a lawyer's error.
2. Cook held that trial courts never had legal authority to decide these motions on the merits and that this rule applies to all cases still on direct review or otherwise not final, which included Rouzan's case.
3. Applying that rule, the court concluded the trial court's June 21, 2021 order granting Rouzan's out-of-time appeal had to be vacated, and the case sent back so the trial court can dismiss the motion instead of ruling on it.
4. The court warned Rouzan that trying to appeal the trial court's earlier order re-entering his conviction would likely now be dismissed as untimely, and that an order dismissing the out-of-time appeal motion itself would not give him a new basis to appeal.
5. The court pointed Rouzan toward habeas corpus, a separate legal proceeding for challenging the legality of imprisonment, as the likely avenue to raise his claim that he was unconstitutionally denied his right to a direct appeal, while noting habeas filings have their own deadlines and limits on repeat petitions.

• out-of-time appeal
• murder conviction
• habeas corpus
• ineffective notice of appeal
• Richmond County