Georgia Commons

Supreme Court of Georgia · criminal appeal

Ware v. State

Filed February 15, 2022 · Docket S22A0098 · 869 S.E.2d 479

The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that a man's motion challenging his 2012 murder indictment came far too late, since Georgia law requires such motions to be filed during the same court term as the judgment.

In plain language

Jermaine Ware was convicted of malice murder in Polk County in December 2012, and the Supreme Court of Georgia already upheld that conviction on direct appeal in 2018. In June 2021, Ware, representing himself, filed a motion in arrest of judgment, a request asking the trial court to void the judgment because he claimed the indictment was legally defective. The Polk County Superior Court denied the motion, saying Ware should have raised the issue on direct appeal. On appeal again, the Supreme Court of Georgia did not reach that question at all. Instead, it found the real problem was timing: Georgia law requires this type of motion to be filed during the same court term in which the judgment was entered. Ware's motion came nearly a decade later, so the trial court never had authority to rule on it and should have dismissed it outright rather than deny it on the merits.

What the court decided

A motion in arrest of judgment must be filed during the same court term in which the judgment was entered, and a trial court that receives such a motion after that term expires has no authority to rule on its merits and must instead dismiss it as untimely.

Why it matters

The ruling reinforces a strict filing deadline that limits how convicted defendants in Georgia can challenge indictments after the fact. It signals to trial courts statewide that untimely arrest-of-judgment motions must be dismissed for lack of authority, not decided on their merits.

Outcome

Vacated and remanded with direction to dismiss as untimely

How the court got there

  1. Georgia law (OCGA § 17-9-61 (b)) requires a motion in arrest of judgment, a request to void a judgment for a legal defect, to be filed during the same court term in which the judgment was entered.
  2. When such a motion is filed after that term has expired, it is untimely, and the trial court has no legal authority to grant any relief on it, regardless of the motion's substance.
  3. Because the trial court lacks authority over an untimely motion, the proper response is to dismiss it rather than to deny it after considering its merits.
  4. Ware's conviction was entered in December 2012 during a court term that expired in March 2013, but he did not file his motion until June 2021, years after that term ended.
  5. Since the motion was untimely, the Superior Court of Polk County lacked jurisdiction to rule on its merits, so the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the order and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss the motion instead.

From the opinion

A trial court presented with such a motion should dismiss it, rather than deny it, and we will vacate a trial court’s order that considers the merits of an untimely motion in arrest of judgment.

Peterson · Explains why the trial court's order had to be vacated rather than reviewed on the merits.

Topics

  • motion in arrest of judgment
  • murder conviction
  • untimely filing
  • Polk County
  • indictment challenge

Ask about this case

Answers come from this document. Not legal advice.