Background
After an April 2022 trial, Jeriod Mathis was convicted of aggravated battery. He was acquitted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court denied his timely motion for new trial, and his appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals of Georgia in February 2026.
Mathis’s appellate brief was filed by Georgia Public Defender Council attorney Nedra Woods. GPDC’s managing appellate attorney later moved to remand, mistakenly asserting that another attorney, Marilyn Tyler, had prepared Mathis’s brief and that Tyler’s appellate briefs had been found substantially deficient. After the State pointed out the error, GPDC moved to dismiss its remand request.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied GPDC’s motion to dismiss the remand motion. Although Tyler did not prepare Mathis’s brief, the court independently reviewed Woods’s brief and concluded that it, too, appeared substantially deficient and below the standards required by Court of Appeals Rule 25.
The court highlighted that the brief misidentified the convictions at issue and argued insufficient evidence for aggravated assault and felony murder, even though Mathis was acquitted of aggravated assault and was never charged or tried for felony murder. Because Mathis was pursuing his first appeal of right, the court granted remand so the trial court could promptly determine whether he wanted retained counsel, appointed counsel if indigent, or to proceed pro se after a proper waiver.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may grant remand based on deficiencies it identifies in the appellant’s brief, even when the stated basis for the remand motion was mistaken.
- A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to effective counsel on a first appeal of right.
- The trial court must determine Mathis’s appellate representation before the appeal is re-docketed under a new case number.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that fundamental inaccuracies about the charges and convictions on appeal can render an appellate brief substantially deficient. It also reflects the court’s effort to protect the defendant’s appellate-counsel rights while complying with Georgia’s constitutional two-term rule for deciding cases.