The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.
The following order was passed:
Petitioner - through counsel Clifford Hardwick IV - filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 16, 2024. He argues that his client was entitled to a direct appeal in this dispossessory proceeding because the Superior Court dismissed the petition for review as untimely. However, it is well-settled that in situations like these, a discretionary application is required. See OCGA § 56-35 (a) (11). See also Brewer v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Atlanta, 170 Ga.App. 351, 351 (317 S.E.2d 327) (1984).
The Court concludes that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this case is frivolous. Indeed, we rejected this same argument by counsel earlier this year. See Hall v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, Case No. S24C0121 (Mar. 5, 2024). Notwithstanding this, counsel filed the present Petition for Writ of Certiorari raising the same contention again. Accordingly, the Court imposes a penalty of $1,000 against counsel, which may not be billed to his client. See Supreme Court Rule 6. The penalty will constitute a money judgment in favor of the Respondent against counsel. See id. Counsel must provide to this Court written evidence of payment within thirty (30) days of the filing of the remittitur in the trial court.
Counsel is again advised that any further frivolous filings in this Court in this or any other matter or the failure to pay the imposed penalty will result in further penalties, including revocation of counsel's authorization to practice in this Court. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied, and penalty imposed.
All the Justices concur.