The Court of Appeals of Georgia has dismissed an appeal by Adonis McKisic, who sought an out-of-time motion for a new trial after being convicted of robbery and battery. This ruling affects McKisic's efforts to challenge his conviction, which was previously upheld by the court. The decision underscores the limitations placed on criminal defendants regarding appeals and motions for new trials.
McKisic was found guilty by a jury and had his conviction affirmed in May 2026. Following this, he filed a pro se motion, meaning he represented himself, in June 2026, seeking an out-of-time motion for a new trial. However, the trial court denied this request, leading McKisic to file a direct appeal. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal.
The dispute began with McKisic's original case, where he was convicted of robbery and battery. The jury's decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeals in May 2026, which upheld the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial. After this, McKisic attempted to file a new motion, claiming he needed more time to appeal his conviction. This led to his latest appeal, which the court has now dismissed.
The Court of Appeals stated, "Because McKisic has already had a direct appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, he is not entitled to an out-of-time motion for a new trial or to appeal the denial of his motion for an out-of-time motion for a new trial." This statement highlights the legal principle that once a defendant has exhausted their direct appeal rights, they cannot seek additional appeals on the same issues.
Judge details were not available in the court filing. The court referenced several previous cases to support its decision, including Richards v. State and Jackson v. State, which clarify that defendants are not entitled to multiple appeals on the same conviction once a direct appeal has been affirmed.
The ruling has significant implications for McKisic and others in similar situations. It reinforces the idea that defendants must act within specific legal timelines and cannot seek repeated opportunities to appeal their convictions without valid grounds. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the strict procedural rules governing criminal appeals in Georgia.
This ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving out-of-time motions for new trials. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the limited options available to defendants once their appeals have been exhausted. The court's clear stance on this issue may deter other defendants from attempting similar appeals without sufficient legal basis.
Looking forward, McKisic's options appear limited after this dismissal. He cannot appeal this decision further, as the court has made it clear that his attempts to challenge his conviction through an out-of-time motion are not permissible. There are no related cases pending that would affect this ruling.