Chambers v. State, 415 S.E.2d 643 (Ga. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Chambers v. State, 415 S.E.2d 643 (Ga. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“here the appellate court has issued the remittitur and it has been received and filed in the clerk's office of the court below, the trial court then has jurisdiction to take further action in the case.”
118 citation events (87 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: MONTE DAVIS v. LAND-RON, INC. (gactapp, 2024-05-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) MONTE DAVIS v. LAND-RON, INC. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
here the appellate court has issued the remittitur and it has been received and filed in the clerk's office of the court below, the trial court then has jurisdiction to take further action in the case.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Waste Management of Georgia, Inc. v. Dasht, LLC (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The “filing of the remittitur in the clerk’s office of the trial court reinvest[s] the trial court with jurisdiction over the case.” Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 (1) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AMERICAN PLUMBING PROFESSIONALS, INC. v. SERVESTAR, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court issued its remittitur to this Court on February 23, 2023, and we issued our remittitur to the trial court the same day. 2 An appellate court retains jurisdiction over a case until it has “issued the remittitur and [the remittitur] has been received and filed in the clerk’s office of the court below[.]” Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (2) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earl Hopper v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
But because Hopper filed a notice of appeal before the trial court docketed our remittitur in Hopper I and entered an order thereon, the record in the present appeal does not contain an order upon which we can base jurisdiction. “[W]here the appellate court has issued [a] remittitur and it has been received and filed in the clerk’s office of the court below, the trial court then has jurisdiction to take further action in the case.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (2) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mike Jethro Azubike Redford v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
See also OCGA § 5-6-45 (a) (“In all criminal cases, the notice of appeal . . . shall serve as supersedeas in all cases where a sentence of death has been imposed or where the defendant is admitted to bail.”); Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 202 (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (the trial and conviction of a defendant that take place while he appeals the denial of a motion to suppress is null and void); Peterson v. State, 274 Ga. 165, 171 (6) ( 549 SE2d 387 ) (2001) (trial court also cannot rule on a motion for new trial after the notice of appeal has been filed). 4 However, [n]ot every action …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rollins v. Rollins
Ga. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Scroggins, 288 Ga. at 347 ; Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (1), (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992); Styles, 245 Ga. App. at 91 (“This is true even if the first appeal ultimately [was] dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (Citations omitted)). “[W]e must vacate the [November 24, 2015 final] contempt order for that reason.” Massey, 294 Ga. at 166 (3).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rollins v. Rollins
Ga. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Scroggins, 288 Ga. at 347 ; Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (1), (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992); Styles, 245 Ga. App. at 91 (“This is true even if the first appeal ultimately [was] dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (Citations omitted)). “[W]e must vacate the [November 24, 2015 final] contempt order for that reason.” Massey, 294 Ga. at 166 (3). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PNC Bank, National Ass'n v. Smith
Ga. · 2016 · confidence medium
Compare, e.g., Foster v. Brown, 253 Ga. 33, 34 ( 315 SE2d 656 ) (1984) (involving OCGA § 9-11-41 (d), which requires a plaintiff who has dismissed an action to “first pay the court costs of the action previously dismissed” before commencing an action based on the same claim against the same defendant); Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (discussing the transfer of jurisdiction between a trial court and an appellate court through the filing of a notice of appeal and the return of the remittitur).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Javaris Brown (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (1), (2), (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (holding that the State’s appeal of an order suppressing evidence deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to try the accused and any proceeding so conducted in the trial court was coram non judice and vacating the resulting judgment and that the return of the remittitur reinvests the 6 trial court with jurisdiction).4 Although a notice of appeal must be filed in the trial court, the appellate court “alone has the authority to determine whether such filing is sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction.” (Citation an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Javaris Brown (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (1), (2), (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (holding that the State’s appeal of an order suppressing evidence deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to try the accused and any proceeding so conducted in the trial court was coram non judice and vacating the resulting judgment and that the return of the remittitur reinvests the 6 trial court with jurisdiction).4 Although a notice of appeal must be filed in the trial court, the appellate court “alone has the authority to determine whether such filing is sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction.” (Citation an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Osborne (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Cf. State v. Varner, 277 Ga. 433, 436 ( 589 SE2d 111 ) (2003) (The State was authorized to appeal from an acquittal entered after a mistrial on the last day of the term of court, because the defendant’s demand for trial operated to secure him a trial at the next regular term of court.); Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 (1), (2), (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (The State was authorized to appeal after acquittal where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the accused when it entered a directed verdict of acquittal and therefore any proceeding so conducted in the trial court was coram …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Massey v. Massey (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although this Court filed an order dismissing Husband’s appeal of the June 27 contempt order on October 1, 2012, an appellate court maintains jurisdiction over a case until it “has issued the remittitur and [the remittitur] has been received and filed in the clerk’s office of the court below.” Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Tavakolian v. Agio Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Smith, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur. 1 Tavakolian v. Agio Corp., 304 Ga. App. 660, 662 ( 697 SE2d 233 ) (2010) (“Tavakolian I”). 2 Id. at 665-666 (5). 3 Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 (1) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992); cf. Marsh v. Way, 255 Ga. 284 (1) ( 336 SE2d 795 ) (1985) (trial court reacquired jurisdiction when remittitur was filed with clerk of trial court); Hagan v. Robert & Co. Assoc., 222 Ga. 469, 470-471 (1) ( 150 SE2d 663 ) (1966) (same); Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929, 930 ( 39 SE 330 ) (1901) (same); Talley v. City Tank Corp., 158 Ga. App. 130, 133 (1) ( 279 SE2d 264 ) (1981) (t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Porter v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Smith, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur. 1 Porter v. State, Case No. S10C1665 (October 18, 2010). 2 See OCGA § 5-6-45 (a): “In all criminal cases, the notice of appeal. . . shall serve as supersedeas in all cases where a sentence of death has been imposed or where the defendant is admitted to bail.” 3 Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 (1) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992). 4 See Moon v. State, 287 Ga. 304, 305 ( 696 SE2d 55 ) (2010) (pendency of appeal did not prevent the trial court from hearing a timely filed motion for reconsideration); Strickland v. State, 258 Ga. 764, 765-766 (1) ( 373 SE2d 73…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kramer v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992); Roberts v. State, 279 Ga. App. 434, 437 ( 631 SE2d 480 ) (2006), overruled on other grounds, DeSouza v. State, 285 Ga. App. 201, 202, n. 2 ( 645 SE2d 684 ) (2007).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roger C. Day v. Bruce Chatman
11th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
In Georgia, an appeal is no longer pending “where the appellate court has issued the remittitur and it has been received and filed in clerk’s office of the court below.” Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200 , 415 S.E.2d 643, 644-45 (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davidson v. Callaway
Ga. · 2002 · confidence medium
All the Justices concur. 1 This Court granted Lisa’s application and remanded this matter with the same written order. 2 OCGA § 19-6-19 (d) provides: “In proceedings for the modification of alimony for the support of a spouse or child . . . the court may award attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of litigation to the prevailing party as the interests of justice may require.” 3 See Sprayberry v. Dougherty County, 273 Ga. 503 ( 543 SE2d 29 ) (2001). 4 Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992), quoting Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929 ( 39 SE 330 ) (1901) (punctuation omitted…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Zant
Ga. · 2001 · confidence medium
On July 8,1999, we disposed of that case by entering an order, the text of which stated: Because we conclude that the habeas court erred in ruling that the applicant, Wayne Williams, waived the claims that he did not include in his proposed final order, we remand the case to the habeas court for it to address those issues. *705 This can only be construed as a final order in Case Number S99H0137, as the remittitur unequivocally noted that Petitioner’s certificate of probable cause was “granted” and that the case was “remanded with direction.” At least until today, we have consistently…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Azizi v. State
Ga. · 2001 · confidence medium
Henry v. James, 264 Ga. 527, 529 ( 449 SE2d 79 ) (1994); Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sterling
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
OCGA § 16-1-8 (d) (1); Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 202 (3) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McIver v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Marquis Orlandis Carswell (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (State’s appeal of suppression order deprived trial court of jurisdiction to try the defendant and rendered his resulting convictions void); Brown, 333 Ga. App. at 643-647 (1) (State’s appeal, filed under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5), of order excluding 8 evidence as a sanction for discovery violations and excluding other-acts evidence, deprived trial court of jurisdiction to try the defendants and rendered their resulting directed verdicts of acquittal void).
discussed Cited "see" LEVIN v. the STATE. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chambers v. State , 262 Ga. 200 , 201 (1), 415 S.E.2d 643 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" TEMPLE v. HILLEGASS Et Al. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chambers v. State , 262 Ga. 200 , 201-202, 415 S.E.2d 643 (1992) ; Tavakolian v. Agio Corp. , 309 Ga. App. 652 , 653-654 (1), 711 S.E.2d 33 (2011).
examined Cited "see" Tolbert v. Toole (3×)
Ga. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (holding that the State’s appeal of a suppression order deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to try the accused and rendered his resulting convictions for armed robbery and other crimes void); Styles v. State, 245 Ga.App. 90, 92 ( 537 SE2d 377 ) (2000) (Blackburn, P. J., concurring specially) (explaining that the supersedeas resulting from an appeal in a criminal case applies to all “proceedings which either require a ruling on the matters on appeal or directly or indirectly affect such matters”).
discussed Cited "see" Atkins v. Estate of Callaway (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 (1), (2) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
examined Cited "see" Griffin v. State (4×)
Ga. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 202 , 415 S.E.2d 643 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Wheeler (2×)
Ga. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201-202 ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992) (holding that the State’s appeal of a suppression order deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to try the accused and rendered his resulting convictions for armed robbery and other crimes void). 18 (emphasis supplied).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Scroggins v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 (1) ( 415 SE2d 643 ) (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Scroggins v. State (2×)
Ga. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201 (1), 415 S.E.2d 643 (1992).
Chambers
v.
the State
S92G0082.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 1, 1992.
415 S.E.2d 643
John B. Adams, for appellant., Harry D. Dixon, Jr., District Attorney, Lucy J. Bell, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Fletcher.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 61%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)
Fletcher, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine whether a trial court has jurisdiction to take any action in a case prior to receiving the remittitur from the appellate court. We hold that a trial court does not and, accordingly, reverse the holding of Division 1 in Chambers v. State, 201 Ga. App. 245 (410 SE2d 771) (1991).

[*201] Chambers was indicted in 1989 for a number of offenses. His motion to suppress certain evidence was granted by the trial court. Upon appeal by the state, the Court of Appeals issued its decision, on February 9, 1990, in State v. Chambers, 194 Ga. App. 609 (391 SE2d 657) (1990), holding that the trial court had erred in granting the motion to suppress. Chambers filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on February 22, 1990 and, on March 2, 1990, he filed a notice of intention to apply to this court for a writ of certiorari.

Although the Court of Appeals had not issued the remittitur, the trial court commenced Chambers’ trial on March 5, 1990. The trial resulted in a guilty verdict on March 7, 1990. Thirteen days later, the Court of Appeals issued the remittitur which was received by and filed in the clerk’s office of the trial court on March 22, 1990.

Chambers filed a motion for new trial contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the trial commenced before the remittitur had even been issued from the Court of Appeals. The motion for new trial was denied and, upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

1. The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that:

the superior court technically lacked the requisite jurisdiction [at the time of Chambers’ trial]. [Cits.] Any proceeding so conducted “is coram non judice,” and the resulting want of jurisdiction cannot be waived by conduct of counsel so as to give effect to the void judgment. [Cits.]

Chambers v. State, supra, p. 245. That court also correctly pointed out that the subsequent filing of the remittitur in the clerk’s office of the trial court reinvested the trial court with jurisdiction over the case. [1]

2. In Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929 (39 SE 330) (1901), we held that an appellate court’s jurisdiction over a case “[is] at an end after the remittitur therefrom [has] been filed in the office of the [court below]” and “that the resumption of jurisdiction by a trial court follows immediately upon the reception by its clerk of the remittitur from [the appellate] court.” Knox, 113 Ga. at pp. 930, 932.

We have recognized that the better practice is for the court below to take no action in the case until the remittitur has been received, filed, and entered on the minutes of the court. Lyon v. Lyon, 103 Ga. 747, 751 (30 SE 575) (1898). However, where the appellate court has issued the remittitur and it has been received and filed in the clerk’s[*202] office of the court below, the trial court then has jurisdiction to take further action in the case. This is true, even though the remittitur may not yet have been entered upon the court’s minutes, because entry of the remittitur may be accomplished by a nunc pro tunc order.

Decided May 1, 1992. John B. Adams, for appellant. Harry D. Dixon, Jr., District Attorney, Lucy J. Bell, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

3. Here, when Chambers’ trial commenced on March 5, 1990, jurisdiction of the case was still in the Court of Appeals as that court had not yet issued the remittitur. Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction of the case when it proceeded to trial and Chambers’ subsequent conviction is void. [2]

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.
1

Typically, there is a two-step procedure followed by a trial court with a remittitur from an appellate court: first, the remittitur issued by the appellate court is received and filed in the clerk’s office and, second, the remittitur is entered upon the minutes of the trial court.

2

Should the state elect to try the case again, double jeopardy will not be an issue as the trial which commenced on March 5, 1990 was a nullity.