Claude Harry Jean v. Sheryl B. Jolly, Judge
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
Date FiledNovember 6, 2026
DocketA27O0026
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
November 06, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A27O0026. CLAUDE HARRY JEAN v. SHERYL B. JOLLY, JUDGE et al.
Claude Jean has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against a superior court
judge and trial court clerk. He seeks an order of this Court, pursuant to our original
mandamus jurisdiction, directing them to transmit a notice of appeal. For the reasons
that follow, we dismiss this petition.
Generally, the superior courts of this state have the power, in
proper cases, to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition,
specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction, and hence the need
to resort to the appellate courts for such relief by petition filed in the
appellate courts will be extremely rare.
Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436, 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), disapproved in part on
other grounds, Arnold v. Alexander, 321 Ga. 330, 336(1) (914 SE2d 311) (2025). See
also Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV. An appellate court’s authority to issue
such writs “is connected only to such powers as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction or
to protect or effectuate its judgments. It does not grant jurisdiction to [the appellate
court] to issue process as an original matter wholly unconnected to its appellate
jurisdiction.” Arnold, 321 Ga. at 334(1) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, “it will be
an ‘extremely rare’ circumstance that would require a party to seek a writ of
mandamus in [an appellate court] in the first instance.” Id. at 335(1) n.6.
Here, while Jean has an appeal currently pending in this Court, his petition
contains no indication either that the relief he seeks will aid our jurisdiction or protect
or effectuate a judgment of this Court or that he filed a mandamus petition in the
superior court seeking such relief. This case therefore does not present one of the
“extremely rare” instances in which this Court will exercise its original mandamus
jurisdiction. See Arnold, 321 Ga. at 335(1) & n.6; Graham v. Cavender, 252 Ga. 123, 123
(311 SE2d 832) (1984) (the procedure to be followed before invoking an appellate
court’s original mandamus jurisdiction is to file a petition in the superior court and
appeal any resulting adverse decision to the appellate court), disapproved in part on
other grounds, Arnold, 321 Ga. at 336(1) & n.7; Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 305
Ga. App. 450, 455(2)(b) (699 SE2d 600) (2010) (“Except in the rarest of cases,
litigants seeking to invoke this Court’s [jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief] must
first petition the superior court for such relief.”), disapproved in part on other
grounds, Arnold, 321 Ga. at 336(1) & n.7. Consequently, his mandamus petition is
hereby DISMISSED. See Ga. Ct. App. R. 40(c); Arnold, 321 Ga. at 335(1) & n.6.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
11/06/2026
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.