---
title: Martin v. State
collection: opinions
id: S26A1488
cite_as: Martin v. State, S26A1488 (Ga. Sep. 22, 2026)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1488
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1488.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1488/text
source_url: https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/s26a1488.pdf
date: 2026-09-22
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-24
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2026.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1003.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26Y0982.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 2091
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1488.md?full=1
docket: S26A1488
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: criminal appeal
case_name_full: Rodriquis Martin v. The State
authoring_justice: Ellington
disposition: Affirmed
vote: All the Justices concur
word_count: 646
date_filed_source: opinion_text
record_source: gasupreme
legal_areas:
  - criminal law
  - appellate procedure
upstream_id: ga-s26a1488
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# Martin v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S26A1488, filed 2026-09-22.

## Opinion

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The ve rsion of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

No. S26A1488

Rodriquis Martin

v.

The State

On Appeal from the Superior Court of Douglas County

No. 18CR00114

Decided: September 22, 2026

ELLINGTON, Justice.

Rodriquis Martin appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his motion for an out-of-time appeal. Because the trial court correctly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm. In June 2018, Martin pleaded guilty to malice murder and burglary and did not appeal. However, on November 12, 2025, he filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal under OCGA § 5-6- 39.1. That statute allows a defendant to move for leave to file an out-of-time appeal but sets time limits for the filing of such motions. Under OCGA § 5-6-39.1(a)(1), a defendant must “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.” And under OCGA § 5-6- 39.1(b), if a defendant previously had either a motion for an out- of-time appeal or a granted out-of-time appeal dismissed under Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471 (2022), the defendant had the right to move for an out-of-time appeal until June 30, 2026. These statutory time limits “are jurisdictional.” Merilien v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (2026), S26A0704, slip op. at 2 (Ga. Aug. 13, 2026). Here, Martin’s motion did not satisfy either of these time limits. First, the motion was not filed within 100 days of the expiration of the time for Martin to appeal his 2018 convictions. See OCGA § 5-6- 39.1(a)(1). Second, the record does not show that Martin had previously filed a motion subject to the decision in Cook, and thus could not have filed a new motion for out-of-time appeal under OCGA § 5-6-39.1(b), even before June 30, 2026. See OCGA § 5-6- 39.1(b). Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Martin’s motion and properly dismissed it. See Merilien, ___ Ga. at ___, slip op. at 2 (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s motion for an out-of-time appeal where the motion did not meet the time limits of OCGA § 5-6-39.1 and therefore properly dismissed the motion). 1

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

1 Pursuant to the procedures of OCGA § 5-6-39.1, Martin was attempting to obtain an appeal from his guilty plea. We note that OCGA § 5-6- 35(a)(5.3), which was enacted as part of the same act that created OCGA § 5- 6-39.1, see Ga. L. 2025 252, § 1–2, requires the filing of an application for discretionary appeal to bring “direct appeals from guilty pleas.” And OCGA § 5-6-35(d) requires that “any such application must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the challenged decision.” Charles v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (2026), S26A1046, slip op. at 3 (Ga. Aug. 13, 2026) (cleaned up). Finally, although OCGA § 5-6-39.1 permits a defendant to move for leave to file an out-of-time motion for new trial or notice of appeal, it “says nothing about out-of-time applications for discretionary appeal.” Id. (cleaned up) (holding that where the defendant had obtained leave to file an out-of-time notice of appeal from his guilty plea under OCGA § 5-6-39.1(a), this Court was required to dismiss the appeal because the defendant failed to meet the deadline for filing an application for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35).

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the dismissal of a man's bid for a late appeal of his 2018 guilty plea to malice murder, finding the strict filing deadlines in Georgia's out-of-time appeal statute had already passed.

### Plain-language summary

Rodriquis Martin pleaded guilty to malice murder and burglary in Douglas County in June 2018 and did not appeal at the time. More than seven years later, in November 2025, he filed his own motion asking a judge to let him file an appeal late, relying on a Georgia law that allows such requests but only within specific time windows.
The trial court dismissed his motion, ruling it lacked authority (jurisdiction) to even consider it because Martin missed both deadlines set by the law: the general 100-day window after his normal appeal period expired, and a special later deadline that only applied to defendants who had already had an earlier out-of-time appeal request thrown out under a prior court decision. Martin did not qualify for either. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed the deadlines are strict jurisdictional limits and upheld the dismissal.

### Holding, as summarized

The court held that the time limits in Georgia's out-of-time appeal statute (OCGA § 5-6-39.1) are jurisdictional, meaning a trial court has no power to consider a late motion that misses them, and because Martin's motion satisfied neither the 100-day deadline nor the special deadline for prior dismissed motions, the trial court properly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

### Disposition

Affirmed. All the Justices concur.

### Why it matters

The decision reinforces that Georgia defendants seeking to appeal old guilty pleas or convictions face hard, unforgiving deadlines under the out-of-time appeal statute. People who miss these windows, even by years, generally lose the ability to challenge their convictions through this route, regardless of the reason for the delay.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions (2,091 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1488.md?full=1