Paul Bettencourt v. State
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
Date FiledSeptember 1, 2026
DocketA27D0102
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
September 01, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A27D0102. PAUL BETTENCOURT v. THE STATE.
Paul Bettencourt was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping and aggravated
sodomy. After the denial of his motion for new trial, Bettencourt appealed and we
affirmed his convictions. See Rogers v. State, 247 Ga. App. 219 (543 SE2d 81) (2000).1
In June 2026, Bettencourt filed a motion to set aside his convictions for fraud pursuant
to OCGA § 9-11-60(d). The trial court denied his motion on July 9, 2026, and
Bettencourt filed the instant application August 26, 2026. We lack jurisdiction for two
reasons.
First, Bettencourt’s application is untimely. An application for discretionary
appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial court order sought
to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35(d). “The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are
jurisdictional and this [C]ourt cannot accept an appeal not made in compliance
therewith.” Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). See also Gable
v. State, 290 Ga. 81, 82 (2) (a) (720 SE2d 170) (2011) (failure to meet the statutory
deadline for filing a discretionary appeal is a jurisdictional defect). Bettencourt’s
application was filed 48 days after entry of the trial court’s order.
Second, Bettencourt did not include the motion he filed below, in violation of
Court of Appeals Rule 31(e). However, it appears from his application that he was
attempting to challenge his convictions. It is well established that substance controls
over nomenclature. See, e.g., Giles v. State, 257 Ga. App. 65, 69(2) (570 SE2d 375)
1
Bettencourt was tried with two co-defendants.
(2002). A motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of
conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a
judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150)
(2010). Because Bettencourt is not authorized to collaterally attack his convictions in
this manner, his application is subject to dismissal for this reason as well. See id.
For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is
hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
09/01/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk.