Nash N. Tuten v. Shalena Cook Jones, Chatham County District Attorney

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
February 09, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26E0140. NASH N. TUTEN v. SHALENA COOK JONES, CHATHAM
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

Appellant has petitioned this Court for a Writ of Mandamus ordering Shalena
Cook Jones, the Chatham County District Attorney, to exonerate his record and
compensate him for what he contends was a wrongful conviction. But having reviewed
Appellant’s petition, this does not appear to be one of the rare instances that will
invoke this Court’s original mandamus jurisdiction.
In general, “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). Thus, before seeking to invoke this
Court’s original mandamus jurisdiction, the procedure which must be followed is to
first file the petition in the appropriate lower court. See Graham v. Cavender, 252 Ga.
123, 123 (311 SE2d 832) (1984); 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 original jurisdiction ... must first petition the superior court for
such relief.”).
In this matter, however, it is unclear from Appellant’s petition and the attached
exhibits as to whether he filed a petition in the lower court. And Court of Appeals
Rule 40(c)(2), in relevant part, provides that a petition for a writ of mandamus “shall
[i]nclude sufficient material to apprise the Court of the issues, in context, and to
support the arguments advanced. Failure to submit sufficient material to apprise the
Court of the issues and support the argument shall result in denial of the motion.”
Furthermore, under Court of Appeals Rule 40(c)(1), an emergency motion
must “[c]ontain an explanation why an order of this Court is necessary and why
mandamus jurisdiction lies in this Court rather than a superior court[.]” This is the
second emergency motion filed by appellant in as many weeks, and while appellant is
pro se, that does not excuse him from “compliance with the substantive and
procedural requirements of the law, including the rules of this Court.” Stewart v.
Johnson, 358 Ga. App. 813, 814 (856 SE2d 401) (2021). To that end, we have struggled
to decipher not only appellant’s handwriting but also any contention as to why an
emergency motion is necessary.
Accordingly, Appellant’s petition is hereby DENIED. See Court of Appeals
Rule 40(c)(1), (c)(2).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
02/09/2026
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.