The Georgia Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Roshoun Jacarri Jenkins who improperly challenged the denial of his statutory speedy trial demand, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to procedural failures.

In *Jenkins v. The State*, decided Feb. 3, 2026, Justice Colvin wrote for the court that Jenkins was required to follow specific interlocutory appeal procedures under Georgia law but failed to do so. The defendant had appealed directly from the dismissal of his speedy trial demand made pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-171.

The court held that dismissals of speedy trial demands do not fall within the categories of cases that allow direct appeals under OCGA § 5-6-34(a). Instead, Jenkins was required to follow the procedures for interlocutory appeals set forth in § 5-6-34(b), which he did not do.

"We are therefore without jurisdiction to consider his appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed," the court wrote, citing established precedent that appeal procedures are jurisdictional requirements.

The decision reinforces long-standing Georgia law that appellate courts must strictly enforce procedural requirements for appeals, even when constitutional rights like speedy trial protections are at stake. The court cited *Duke v. State* (2019), which established that "the provisions of the law respecting the procedure to be followed in perfecting appeals to this Court are jurisdictional, and unless this Court has jurisdiction of a case, it is without power or authority to render a judgment upon review."

The opinion also referenced *Dias v. Boone* (2025), noting that courts have an obligation to examine their own jurisdiction even when parties do not raise the issue. "It is incumbent upon this Court, even when not raised by the parties, to inquire into its own jurisdiction," the court wrote.

Georgia's speedy trial statutes provide criminal defendants with specific procedural mechanisms to demand timely prosecution of their cases. OCGA § 17-7-171 governs these demands, while related statute § 17-7-170 addresses speedy trial demands in noncapital cases. The court referenced *Hubbard v. State* (1985) in discussing the framework for speedy trial demands under Georgia law.

The procedural requirements for appeals in Georgia distinguish between direct appeals and interlocutory appeals. Direct appeals under OCGA § 5-6-34(a) are limited to specific categories of cases, while interlocutory appeals under § 5-6-34(b) require additional procedural steps that defendants must follow when challenging pre-trial rulings.

Jenkins's failure to comply with these requirements resulted in the complete dismissal of his appeal, leaving the trial court's denial of his speedy trial demand intact. The procedural dismissal means the Georgia Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Jenkins's speedy trial claim or evaluate whether his constitutional rights were violated.

The decision reflects the court's consistent approach to jurisdictional requirements, emphasizing that procedural compliance cannot be waived even in cases involving fundamental constitutional protections. Criminal defendants seeking to challenge pre-trial rulings must carefully navigate Georgia's specific appeal procedures or risk losing their opportunity for appellate review entirely.

This case serves as a reminder to criminal defense attorneys about the importance of understanding and following proper appeal procedures in Georgia courts. The dismissal illustrates how procedural errors can prevent appellate courts from addressing substantive constitutional claims, regardless of their merit.

The ruling also demonstrates the Georgia Supreme Court's commitment to maintaining clear jurisdictional boundaries and procedural requirements in the appellate process. By dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction rather than addressing the underlying speedy trial issues, the court preserved the distinction between different types of appeals while ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

For practitioners handling criminal cases in Georgia, the decision underscores the critical importance of understanding which type of appeal is appropriate for different pre-trial rulings and following the correct procedural steps to preserve appellate rights. The case highlights that even fundamental constitutional challenges can be lost due to procedural missteps in the appellate process.

The dismissal leaves Jenkins without appellate review of his speedy trial claim, though he retains the right to raise constitutional speedy trial violations through other procedural mechanisms as his case proceeds through the trial court system.