Edward v. Tallon v. State
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
Date FiledAugust 4, 2026
DocketA26D0664
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
August 04, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26D0664. EDWARD TALLON v. THE STATE.
In October 2025, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that
Edward Tallon had violated his probation and revoked the balance of his probation.
In May 2026, Tallon filed a motion to recuse. The trial court denied the motion in an
order signed on June 11, 2026. Tallon filed this application for discretionary appeal on
July 15, 2026. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
First, the copy of the trial court order Tallon submitted to this Court is not
stamped “filed,” meaning we have no way of knowing whether Tallon’s application
is timely. See OCGA § 5-6-35(d) (a discretionary application must be filed within 30
days of the entry of the order, decision, or judgment sought to be appealed). On July
16, 2026, this Court issued an order requiring Tallon to supplement his application
with a stamped filed copy of the order. Our order further informed Tallon that failure
to “cause a copy of said order to be filed with the Court within 10 days of the date of
this order” would result in the application’s dismissal. Tallon’s failure to comply with
this order requires that his application be dismissed.
Moreover, an order denying a motion to recuse is interlocutory. Ellis v.
Stanford, 256 Ga. App. 294, 295(2) (568 SE2d 157) (2002). Thus, in order to appeal,
Tallon was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedure, including obtaining a
certificate of immediate review from the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-34(b); Boyd v.
State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Although Tallon filed an
application for discretionary appeal, compliance with the discretionary-appeal statute
does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from
complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b). See Bailey v. Bailey,
266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).
For these reasons, this application is hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
08/04/2026
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.