text:
    A12A1403.
    MATHIS et al. v. RIVER CITY BANK.
    (731 SE2d 788)
   Miller, Judge.

Christopher W. Mathis and Paula K. Mathis (the ‘Mathises”) filed an untimely answer and counterclaim to a foreclosure on personalty action pursued by River City Bank (the “Bank”). The Bank moved to dismiss the Mathises’ answer and counterclaim, arguing that it was untimely filed under OCGA § 44-14-267. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss. The Mathises appeal from that order, contending that the trial court erred in not applying OCGA § 9-11-55 (a), which permits the opening of a default as a matter of right, in this case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

This appeal presents a question of law concerning the applicability of OCGA § 9-11-55 (a) to the filing of defenses to an immediate writ of possession as provided by OCGA § 44-14-267. As such, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review. See Deere Park & Assoc. v. C H Furniture Source, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 382 (674 SE2d 635) (2009).

The record shows that in return for a $425,000 loan, the Mathises gave the Bank a security interest in their farm equipment and cattle. When the Mathises defaulted on their loan, the Bank filed a petition of immediate writ of possession. The trial court granted the Bank’s petition and issued an immediate writ of possession. The Mathises were served with the immediate writ of possession on March 31,2011. They filed their answer and counterclaim onMay 13,2011, which was more than 30 days after service was effectuated. The Bank subsequently moved to dismiss the Mathises’ answer and counterclaim on the grounds that it was untimely filed. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss, from which the Mathises appeal.

The Mathises contend that the trial court erred in not applying the provisions of the Civil Practice Act (“CPA”), namely OCGA § 9-11-55 (a), to the special statutory proceeding of immediate writs of possession. The Mathises assert that although their answer was untimely filed, they were entitled to have a default opened as a matter of right since their answer was filed within the 15-day grace period provided for in OCGA § 9-11-55 (a). We disagree.

“Generally, the provisions of the Civil Practice Act (CPA) apply to all special statutory proceedings except to the extent that specific rules of practice and procedure in conflict therewith are expressly prescribed by law. OCGA § 9-11-81.” (Punctuation omitted.) Anderson v. Flake, 270 Ga. 141, 141-142 (1) (508 SE2d 650) (1998). To determine whether OCGA § 9-11-55 (a) applies to immediate writs of possession, we must first look to the literal meaning of the statutes governing such writs. See Clayton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. City of Atlanta, 299 Ga. App. 233, 234 (682 SE2d 328) (2009). “If the language is plain and does not lead to any absurd or impractical consequences, the [C]ourt simply construes it according to its terms and conducts no further inquiry.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Id.

Applying these principles, we examine the relevant statutes governing immediate writs of possession. OCGA § 44-14-267 pertinently provides that

... no later than 30 days after service as provided for under Code Section 44-14-265, the defendant may appear and file any legal or equitable defense or counterclaim to the petitioner’s claim for a writ of immediate possession. . . .

(Punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.)

Upon the failure of the defendant to appear and answer within the time provided in Code Section 44-14-267, ... a default judgment shall be entered against the defendant for the full amount of the petitioner’s claim.

(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 44-14-269. There is nothing that suggests that the legislature intended to use the word “shall” in OCGA § 44-14-269 to denote a permissive rather than a mandatory meaning. See Ring v. Williams, 192 Ga. App. 329, 330 (2) (384 SE2d 914) (1989) (noting that the term “ ‘[s]hall’ ordinarily denotes command and not permission”) (citation and punctuation omitted); State of Ga. v. Brantley, 147 Ga. App. 569, 570 (249 SE2d 365) (1978) (“The word ‘shall’ is in its ordinary signification a word of command.”) (citation omitted).

Relying on Ford v. State, 271 Ga. 162 (516 SE2d 778) (1999), the Mathises argue that they were entitled to open a default as a matter of right under OCGA § 9-11-55 (a). They assert that nothing in the statutory language concerning foreclosures on personalty precludes parties from seeking relief from default judgments. In Ford, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether OCGA § 9-11-55 (a) applied to the special statutory proceeding of forfeiture actions under OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (4), which requires the trial court to order the disposition of seized property if no answer has been filed within the statutory 30-day time period. Id. at 162. The Supreme Court held that because OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (4) was silent concerning relief from judgments entered after default, the statutory language did not expressly describe a procedure that was contrary to the default provisions of OCGA § 9-11-55, and therefore the defendants were entitled to open their default under OCGA § 9-11-55. Id. at 163.

Unlike the forfeiture actions at issue in Ford, however, the provisions concerning foreclosures on personalty do expressly conflict with the provisions of OCGA § 9-11-55 (a). Notably, the applicable statutes governing foreclosures on personalty provide a specific procedure for opening defaults. In this regard, OCGA § 44-14-233 (a) provides that a defendant who fails to timely answer a writ of possession “may reopen the default as a matter of right by making an answer within seven days after the date of the default notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 9-11-55.” (Punctuation omitted.) OCGA § 44-14-233 (a). Consequently, the plain language of OCGA § 44-14-233 (a) expressly states that OCGA § 9-11-55 does not apply to foreclosures on personalty. Since the Mathises failed to open default as a matter of right within seven days under OCGA § 44-14-233 (a), the case remained in default. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision granting the motion to dismiss was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

Mikell, R J., and Ray, J., concur.

Decided August 31, 2012.

Gammon, Anderson & McFall, W. Wright Gammon, Jr., for appellants.

Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler, Richardson & Davis, Thomas D. Richardson, for appellee.

       OCGA § 9-11-55 (a) states in pertinent part:
      If in any case an answer has not been filed within the time required by this chapter, the case shall automatically become in default unless the time for filing the answer has been extended as provided by law. The default may he opened as a matter of right by the filing of such defenses within 15 days of the day of default, upon the payment of costs. If the case is still in default after the expiration of the period of 15 days, the plaintiff at any time thereafter shall he entitled to verdict and judgment by default, in open court or in chambers [.]


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Dillard, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    A12A0996.
    WILKINSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. v. JOHNSON.
    (732 SE2d 765)
   Dillard, Judge.

Following the death of her husband, Violet Johnson sought dependent’s benefits from her husband’s employer, the Wilkinson County Board of Education. After an administrative-law judge (ALJ) and the State Board of Workers’ Compensation (the “Board”) denied her claim, Mrs. Johnson appealed to the superior court, which reversed the Board’s ruling and remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration. Wilkinson County now appeals, arguing that the superior court erred in ruling that Mrs. Johnson was entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment, in finding that Mr. Johnson’s death occurred when he was performing his job duties, and in remanding the case to the ALJ for a determination of whether Mr. Johnson’s death was the result of his employment aggravating a pre-existing medical condition. Because the superior court, the Board, and the ALJ misapplied the law in determining whether Mrs. Johnson was entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of his employment, we vacate the superior court’s order, as well as the Board and the ALJ’s rulings. Accordingly, we remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

At the outset, we note that in reviewing a workers’ compensation award, this Court must construe the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the appellate division.” In addition, the findings of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, when supported by any evidence, are “conclusive and binding, and neither the superior court nor this Court may substitute itself as a factfinding body in lieu of the State Board.” But erroneous applications of law to undisputed facts, as well as decisions based on erroneous theories of law, are “subject to a de novo standard of review.” And when it is determined that the Board or the ALJ decided the case on an erroneous legal theory or improperly applied the law to the facts, the proper course of action is for this Court to remand the case to the ALJ for further findings and consideration.

In the case sub judice, the record shows that Harold Johnson was employed as the principal and athletic director for the Wilkinson County High School. His medical history included diagnoses of hypertension, obesity, renal insufficiency, and gout. On the morning of December 16, 2008, Johnson and a school volunteer traveled in Johnson’s pickup truck to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Dublin, Georgia, to inspect, and possibly transport, computers that were being donated to the high school. While at the VA, Johnson walked 300 or 400 yards to the warehouse where the computers were stored and then, after determining that there were more computers than they could transport at that time, he walked 300 or 400 yards back to the front of the VA building, where his truck was parked.

As they began their trip back to the high school, Johnson and the volunteer first stopped briefly to buy lunch at a nearby fast-food restaurant, and Johnson ate two sandwiches as he drove. About ten minutes after Johnson finished eating, the volunteer noticed that Johnson was driving erratically, fidgeting, and sweating profusely. A minute or so later, the volunteer noticed Johnson attempting to loosen his tie and unbutton his shirt as if to get air. Shortly thereafter, at the volunteer’s request, Johnson stopped his truck so that the volunteer could take over driving, which he did for the remainder of the trip.

When they arrived back at the high school, Johnson immediately went to the restroom in the teachers’ workroom and, shortly thereafter, to his office. In his office, Johnson’s secretary observed that he was sweating profusely, and Johnson asked her to help him unbutton and remove his shirt. The school nurse was then called, and when she arrived at the office, Johnson was propped up on a small sofa, and he asked the nurse to help him because he was “hurting really bad” and “burning up.” The nurse measured Johnson’s blood pressure, and upon determining that it was significantly elevated, she asked that an ambulance be called. While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, the assistant principal, who was also present in Johnson’s office, asked Johnson whether he had been taking his prescribed blood-pressure medicine, and Johnson replied that he had not.

Several minutes later, paramedics arrived on the scene and transported Johnson to the hospital. There, Johnson’s blood pressure was noted as being 196/60, and a CT scan revealed that he had suffered an acute aortic dissection extending from the root of the aorta down the common iliac. Johnson then underwent emergency surgery to repair the artery. Although the surgery was successful, within a few days, Johnson began suffering from metabolic acidosis due to his weakened kidneys. Ultimately, on December 21, 2008, Johnson went into abrupt respiratory arrest and died. A subsequent autopsy indicated that the cause of death was complications of the aortic dissection, specifically an ischemic bowel.

Thereafter, Violet Johnson filed a claim seeking dependency benefits, medical expenses, final expenses, and attorney fees from Wilkinson County on the grounds that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Wilkinson County denied Mrs. Johnson’s claim for benefits. And following a hearing, the ALJ agreed with Wilkinson County’s decision, finding that Mrs. Johnson failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that her husband’s aortic dissection was “attributable to the performance of his usual work of employment.” Additionally, the ALJ held that Mrs. Johnson was not entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment because he was not found dead in a place where he could reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his job duties. Mrs. Johnson then appealed the denial of benefits to the appellate division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, which affirmed the ruling of the ALJ.

Consequently, Mrs. Johnson appealed to the Superior Court of Wilkinson County. After the parties filed briefs on the issues, the superior court held that the ALJ erred in concluding that “[hjecause the deceased employee was not found dead in a place where he could reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his job duties, the claimant is not entitled to the presumption that the deceased employee’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment.” To the contrary, the superior court held that the incident that resulted in Johnson’s death did, in fact, occur at a time and place when he was in the performance of his job duties, and thus, Mrs. Johnson was entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment. In addition, the court held that the ALJ should have considered, in light of this presumption, whether a preponderance of the competent and credible evidence showed that the condition which resulted in Johnson’s death was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. In accordance with these holdings, the court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration. Thereafter, Wilkinson County filed an application for discretionary appeal, which we granted. This appeal follows.

As previously noted, Wilkinson County now contends that the superior court erred in ruling that Mrs. Johnson was entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment, in finding that Johnson’s death occurred when he was performing his job duties, and in remanding the case to the ALJ for a determination of whether Johnson’s death was the result of his employment aggravating his pre-existing medical condition. We agree that the superior court erred in ruling that Mrs. Johnson was entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment and in finding as a matter of fact that the incident resulting in Johnson’s death occurred while he was performing his job duties. Thus, we vacate the superior court’s order. Nevertheless, because the ALJ similarly applied an erroneous theory of law in determining that Mrs. Johnson was not entitled to the presumption that her husband’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment, we must also vacate the Board and the ALJ’s rulings and remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

The Workers’ Compensation Act was enacted “as a humanitarian measure providing relief to the injured employee and protecting employers from excessive damage awards.” Specifically, the act was created to provide financial assistance to injured employees who suffer “injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [their] employment.” In such cases, the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish the essential elements of his claim, including the fact that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The claimant is aided in his burden by the well-established presumption that “when an employee is found dead in a place where he might reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his duties, it is presumed that the death arose out of his employment.” Once this presumption is found to apply, the claimant has “established] a prima facie case ... that the death arose out of employment,” and the burden then shifts to the employer or carrier to produce evidence to rebut the presumption.

Importantly, the presumption that the death arose out of the decedent’s employment “arises only where the death is unexplained.” Following a “tortured appellate history” of case law on this subject, this Court established what constitutes an “unexplained” death in Zamora v. Coffee General Hospital. In light of modern forensic medicine, we noted that it is rarely the case that the decedent’s immediate cause of death is unexplained. Consequently, if an unexplained immediate cause of death were required before the presumption could apply, “there would be no viability whatsoever to the ‘well established’ presumption.” We, therefore, adopted the rule that “the presumption is viable only where, under the evidence, the precipitating rather than immediate causative factor in the death is unexplained.” Furthermore, this rule also attaches where “the immediate cause of death arises from internal and physical rather than external and non-physical factors.” For instance, where the precipitating causative factor of a stroke is known and explained as hypertension, the claimant is not entitled to “rely upon the presumption that the stroke ‘arose out of’ the deceased’s employment but must submit probative evidence on the issue of the causal connection between the stroke and the employment.” Thus, the rule is that where the evidence demonstrates that the precipitating causative factor of a death is known and explained, “neither the claimant, the administrative law judge nor the Full Board is authorized to rely upon the presumption that the death arose out of the employment.”

Here, both the ALJ and the Board held that the unexplained death presumption did not arise because Mrs. Johnson’s husband died at the hospital and, therefore, was not found dead in a place where he could reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his job duties. However, this conclusion constitutes a misinterpretation of the law given that “the unexplained death presumption has been expanded to include cases in which the employee becomes ill at [his] place of employment and dies from such illness at the hospital.” Thus, the superior court correctly held that the ALJ and the Board erred in concluding as a matter of law that the unexplained death presumption did not arise in this case because Johnson was not found dead at his place of employment.

Nevertheless, the superior court erred in two respects by holding that the presumption necessarily arose based on the court’s finding that the incident “which ultimately resulted in [Johnson’s] death did occur at a time and place when [Johnson] was in the performance of his job duties.” First, in finding that the incident that resulted in Johnson’s death occurred while Johnson was performing his job, the superior court improperly substituted itself as a fact-finding body. Indeed, neither the superior court nor this Court has any authority to “substitute itself as a fact finding body in lieu of the Board.” Additionally, as noted supra, the application of the unexplained-death presumption requires — quite obviously- — -that the precipitating cause of Johnson’s death be unexplained. But here, neither the ALJ nor the superior court made a specific finding as to the precipitating cause of Johnson’s death, and neither determined whether the precipitating cause of the death was ultimately explained.

Accordingly, we vacate the superior court’s order and the ALJ’s order denying Mrs. Johnson’s claim for dependent’s benefits, and we remand the case to the ALJ. On remand, the ALJ shall determine if the unexplained-death presumption is applicable by determining whether the incident that resulted in Johnson’s death occurred at a time and place in which Johnson might reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his job duties and whether the precipitating cause of Johnson’s death is unexplained. If the presumption applies, then Wilkinson County must introduce evidence “to show that the death did not arise out of the employment to overcome the presumption.” And the presumption that a death was employment-related cannot be overcome by “presenting evidence that the death ‘might not have’ been employment related but the evidence must show that the death ‘did not’ arise out of the employment.” However, if the ALJ determines that the presumption is not applicable, then Mrs. Johnson has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the incident resulting in her husband’s death was attributable to the performance of the usual work of his employment.

Decided September 6, 2012.

Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Robert R. Potter, K. Martine Cumbermack, for appellants.

Edwards & Youmas, Lonzy F. Edwards, for appellee.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

Ellington, C. J., and Phipps, P. J., concur.

        Laurens County Bd. of Ed. v. Dewberry, 296 Ga. App. 204, 205-06 (674 SE2d 73) (2009).

        Id. at 206.

        Trax-Fax, Inc. v. Hobba, 277 Ga. App. 464, 464 (627 SE2d 90) (2006).

        See S. Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Hodges, 164 Ga. App. 757, 761 (3) (298 SE2d 570) (1982).

        Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 73 (274 SE2d 327) (1981) (punctuation omitted).

        See OCGA § 34-9-1 (4); see also Slaten v. Travelers Ins. Co., 197 Ga. 1, 2-3 (28 SE2d 280) (1943); Travelers Ins. Co. v. S. Elec., Inc., 209 Ga. App. 718, 719 (1) (434 SE2d 507) (1993).

        See, e.g., Publishers Circulation Fulfillment, Inc. v. Bailey, 215 Ga. App. 136, 137 (449 SE2d 645) (1994); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. King, 127 Ga. App. 566, 567 (1) (194 SE2d 282) (1972); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Watson, 91 Ga. App. 657, 657 (1) (86 SE2d 656) (1955).

        Int’l Paper Co. v. Gilbourn, 144 Ga. App. 175, 176 (2) (240 SE2d 722) (1977).

        Gen. Acc. Fire & Life Ins. Co. v. Sturgis, 136 Ga. App. 260, 264 (221 SE2d 51) (1975).

        Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Trigg, 144 Ga. App. 74, 76 (240 SE2d 725) (1977).

       162 Ga. App. 82, 84 (290 SE2d 192) (1982).

        Id.

        Id.

        Id. at 85; see Trigg, 144 Ga. App. at 76.

        Zamora, 162 Ga. App. at 85.

        Id. We note that pursuant to OCGA § 34-9-1 (4), “heart disease, heart attack, the failure or occlusion of any of the coronary blood vessels, stroke, or thrombosis” do not constitute compensable injuries unless “it is shown by a preponderance of competent and credible evidence, which shall include medical evidence, that any of such conditions were attributable to the performance of the usual work of employment.” However, the unexplained death presumption satisfies this statute’s proof requirement because the decedent’s death is thereby presumed to arise out of the decedent’s employment. See Keystone Automotive v. Hall, 292 Ga. App. 645, 654 (2) (665 SE2d 392) (2008) (“[Ojnce the unexplained death presumption arises, no further proof is required to satisfy OCGA § 34-9-1 (4).”). Cf. Zamora, 162 Ga. App. at 85 (applying the analysis for the unexplained death presumption in characterizing “stroke” as an immediate cause of death and “hypertension” as a precipitating cause of death).

        Zamora, 162 Ga. App. at 85 (punctuation omitted).

        Buschel v. Kysor/Warren, 213 Ga. App. 91, 94 (4) (444 SE2d 105) (1994); see also Southwire Co. v. Cato, 250 Ga. 895, 898 n.2 (302 SE2d 91) (1983); Sturgis, 136 Ga. App. at 263.

        See Laurens, 296 Ga. App. at 206.

        Jones County Bd. of Educ. v. Patterson, 255 Ga. App. 166, 167 (564 SE2d 777) (2002) (punctuation omitted).

        See Zamora, 162 Ga. App. at 85.

        See id. at 85-86.

        Id. at 87 (punctuation omitted; emphasis in original).

        Keystone Automotive, 292 Ga. App. at 654 (1) (punctuation omitted).

        See OCGA § 34-9-1 (4).


text:
    A12A1001.
    SHERRELL v. THE STATE.
    (731 SE2d 790)
   Dillard, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Patrick Sherrell was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault upon his wife. Sherrell appeals his convictions, arguing that (1) the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court erred in prohibiting letters written to him by his wife from being sent out with the jury during deliberations pursuant to the State’s continuing-witness objection, and (3) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the record shows that Sherrell and his wife, C. S., met in January 2008, began dating in August 2008, and were married after just a five-day courtship. The couple initially lived with C. S.’s parents, but approximately one month after their marriage, they moved in with Sherrell’s mother, who lived in the small town of Shady Dale in Jasper County. It was during the early days of their marriage that Sherrell began physically abusing C. S., and he continued to do so on a regular basis over the course of the next two years.

On November 14,2009, C. S. went to a baby shower at her uncle’s home. Upon her arrival, several of C. S.’s family members noticed that she had bruises on her face and neck and that she had difficulty sitting. When questioned by her family about the injuries, C. S. admitted that two weeks earlier- — on October 31, 2009 — Sherrell had beaten her with a belt and the wooden handle of a toilet plunger. Consequently, C. S.’s aunt and uncle took her to the Jasper County Sheriff’s Department, where C. S. repeated her allegations to investigators. And while there, a female deputy photographed C. S.’s injuries, which — in addition to the bruises on her face and neck— included two open sores on her buttocks. Immediately thereafter, C. S.’s aunt and uncle took C. S. to the hospital, where her injuries were treated.

After speaking with C. S. and several of her family members, an investigator from the Jasper County Sheriff’s Department went to Sherrell’s mother’s residence in Shady Dale, where Sherrell and C. S. were still living, and arrested Sherrell. Shortly thereafter, Sherrell was released on bond. And although one of the conditions of his bond prohibited him from having any contact with C. S., the couple reunited a short time after Sherrell’s release.

On May 6, 2010, a Jasper County Sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to Sherrell’s mother’s residence in Shady Dale in response to a domestic-disturbance call. When the deputy arrived, Sherrell and C. S. were both there, and the deputy observed bruises on C. S.’s face and arms and a bandage on her forehead. When asked how she sustained her injuries, C. S. responded that they were the result of falling down and “rough sex.” Although extremely skeptical of C. S.’s explanation, the deputy did not arrest Sherrell but instead took Sherrell and C. S.’s driver’s licenses with him to the sheriff’s office so that the matter could be further investigated.

The very next day, the investigator who had arrested Sherrell for the October 31, 2009 incident was tending to an unrelated matter at the courthouse when he was informed that Sherrell was in the lobby of the sheriff’s office, requesting that his driver’s license be returned. Upon arrival, the investigator saw Sherrell’s truck in the parking lot with what appeared to be only Sherrell’s dog inside the vehicle. After entering the building and briefly speaking with Sherrell, the investigator walked back outside with the intention of going to Sherrell’s mother’s residence to check on C. S. As the investigator and another deputy were about to leave, they observed Sherrell’s vehicle leaving the parking lot. However, in addition to the dog, the investigator now observed that C. S. — who apparently had been attempting to conceal herself by ducking — was also in the truck with Sherrell.

The investigator immediately blocked Sherrell’s truck with his own vehicle and asked both Sherrell and C. S. to exit. As they complied, the investigator saw that C. S.’s face was bruised, both of her eyes were swollen, and her forehead was bandaged. The investigator also noticed that C. S. seemed to be in pain on her right side. Initially, C. S. denied that Sherrell had abused her, and instead, claimed again that her injuries were the result of “rough sex.” Unconvinced, the investigator asked both C. S. and Sherrell to come with him into the sheriff’s office, at which point, C. S.’s injuries were photographed and Sherrell was arrested for aggravated assault and violating a condition of his bond. Eventually, C. S. admitted that she sustained her injuries as a result of Sherrell beating her with a belt and his fists.

Thereafter, Sherrell was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault, both of which related to the May 6, 2010 incident. Prior to trial, the State successfully moved to introduce details related to the October 31, 2009 incident, in which Sherrell beat C. S. with the plunger, as similar-transaction evidence. And during Sherrell’s trial, C. S. testified about the history of physical abuse she had suffered at Sherrell’s hands, including the specific incidents that occurred on October 31, 2009 and May 6, 2010. Additionally, several of the sheriff’s deputies involved testified concerning their investigations, and photographs of C. S.’s injuries were admitted into evidence.

Sherrell called several witnesses to testify in his defense. In addition, Sherrell testified and denied beating C. S. Instead, he claimed that C. S. had a long history of mental-health problems, including depression and schizophrenia, and that her injuries were the result of a combination of self-infliction, her own clumsiness, and “rough sex” that she initiated. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Sherrell on both counts.

Subsequently, Sherrell obtained new counsel and filed a motion for new trial, alleging, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After conducting a hearing on Sherrell’s motion, during which Sherrell’s trial counsel testified, the trial court issued an order denying same. This appeal follows.

At the outset, we note that when a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, “but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” Accordingly, a jury’s verdict will be upheld “[a]s long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case . . . ,”

1. Sherrell contends that the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.

With regard to venue, the Georgia Constitution and our statutory law require that a criminal defendant be tried in the county in which the alleged crime was committed. Indeed,

[v] enue is a jurisdictional fact, and is an essential element in proving that one is guilty of the crime charged. Like every other material allegation in the indictment, venue must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of venue is a part of the State’s case, and the State’s failure to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt renders the verdict contrary to law, without a sufficient evidentiary basis, and warrants reversal.

But the State may establish venue by whatever means of proof are available to it, including “direct and circumstantial evidence.” Importantly, whether the evidence as to venue satisfied the reasonable-doubt standard “is a question for the jury, and its decision will not be set aside if there is any evidence to support it.”

Here, C. S. testified that shortly after marrying Sherrell, the couple moved into Sherrell’s mother’s residence, which was in the town of Shady Dale in Jasper County. And she further testified that she was living at the Shady Dale residence at the time of the May 6, 2010 incident, which was the subject of the charges in the indictment. In addition, the Jasper County Sheriff’s deputy who was dispatched to investigate the domestic disturbance at the Shady Dale residence on May 6, 2010, testified that when he met with C. S. at the residence she had bruises on her face and neck and a bandage on her forehead. Given this testimony, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the aggravated assaults that Sherrell inflicted upon his wife occurred in Jasper County.

Furthermore,

[i]n light of the well-settled principle that public officials are believed to have performed their duties properly and not to have exceeded their authority unless clearly proven otherwise, the jury was authorized to find the [Jasper] County investigator acted within the territorial jurisdiction in which he testified he was employed.

Accordingly, the totality of the evidence sufficed to show venue in Jasper County.

2. Sherrell also contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting letters written to him by his wife from being sent out with the jury during deliberations, pursuant to the State’s objection that doing so would violate the continuing-witness rule. We agree that the trial court misapplied the continuing-witness rule in sustaining the State’s objection, but we disagree that the court’s misapplication of the rule requires reversal of Sherrell’s convictions.

Under well-settled Georgia law, the continuing-witness objection is based on the notion that written testimony is “heard by the jury when read from the witness stand just as oral testimony is heard when given from the witness stand,” but that it is “unfair and places undue emphasis on written testimony for the writing to go out with the jury to be read again during deliberations, while oral testimony is received but once.”

Most commonly, the types of documents that have been held subject to the continuing-witness rule include “affidavits, depositions, written confessions, statements, and dying declarations.” And these documents, “which generally contain their makers’ assertions of purported truths, are ascribed evidentiary value only to the extent that their makers are credible.”

Here, the challenged exhibits consisted of two letters to Sherrell from his wife: The first was written a few weeks prior to the October 31, 2009 incident, and the second was written several months after the May 6, 2010 incident. In both letters, C. S. expressed her love for Sherrell, apologized for her own behavior, and thanked him for helping her to address her mental-health problems. The letters were admitted into evidence, and Sherrell’s trial counsel read significant parts from both during his extensive cross-examination of C. S. However, pursuant to the State’s objection, the trial court prohibited the letters from going out with the jury during its deliberations. But given that the letters were not written testimony and did not derive their evidentiary value solely from the credibility of C. S., the trial court erred in doing so.

Nevertheless, a misapplication of the continuing-witness rule does not require reversal if the error was harmless. In this respect, our Supreme Court has held that “[i]f it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment then the error is harmless.” And the proper test to determine whether error is harmless — due to overwhelming evidence of guilt — is not whether there is sufficient other evidence to convict “but whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment.” Here, as previously noted, Sherrell’s trial counsel read several parts of both letters during the trial, and he cross-examined C. S. extensively regarding the content of those letters. Thus, despite not having the letters during deliberations, the jury was made well aware of C. S.’s mental-health problems and of the fact that even after Sherrell was arrested for physically abusing her, C. S. professed her love for him and blamed herself for their marital problems. Furthermore, in light of C. S.’s testimony that Sherrell repeatedly physically abused her and the corroboration of her testimony by family members, police officers, and medical professionals who observed the extent of her injuries, the evidence that Sherrell committed the aggravated assaults against his wife was overwhelming. Accordingly, it is highly probable that preventing the letters from going out with the jury during deliberations did not contribute to the guilty verdicts.

3. Sherrell further contends that the trial court erred in denying his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Once again, we disagree.

It is axiomatic that in order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Sherrell must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced him that “there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” In addition, a criminal defendant must overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. And unless clearly erroneous, we will uphold a trial court’s factual determinations with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. A trial court’s legal conclusions in this regard, however, are reviewed de novo. With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address Sherrell’s claim.

During his cross-examination of the Jasper County Sheriff’s Department’s lead investigator, Sherrell’s trial counsel asked if he was aware of C. S.’s mental state when he spoke to her in the parking lot of the sheriff’s office the day after the May 6, 2010 incident. The investigator responded, “Well, she was distressed. She — we have a term that’s considered the battered wife syndrome where they actually go into a mode of protection for against the abuser. She exhibited that.” Sherrell’s trial counsel did not object to this testimony, and the investigator went on to discuss the fact that C. S. initially refused medical treatment and initially denied that Sherrell was responsible for her injuries.

Decided September 6, 2012

Bernard S. Brody, for appellant.

Fredric D. Bright, District Attorney, Shelley S. Tice, Daniel B. Cochran, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

On appeal, Sherrell argues that the Sheriff’s Department’s investigator’s reference to the battered-wife syndrome constituted expert testimony, which the investigator was not qualified to provide, and thus, his trial counsel’s failure to object to this testimony constituted ineffective assistance. However, even if we were to accept Sherrell’s argument that his trial counsel was deficient in failing to object to the investigator’s passing reference to the battered-woman syndrome, Sherrell must also show that he was prejudiced by the mistake in order to prevail on his ineffective assistance claim. Given, as previously noted supra, the overwhelming evidence supporting the verdict, we find that Sherrell has “failed to show that but for the deficiency, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Sherrell’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Judgment affirmed.

Ellington, C. J., and Phipps, P. J., concur.

        See Strozier v. State, 314 Ga. App. 432, 433 (724 SE2d 446) (2012).

       See OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2) (“Aperson commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults... [w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury....”).

        See, e.g., English v. State, 301 Ga. App. 842, 842 (689 SE2d 130) (2010).

         Joiner v. State, 299 Ga. App. 300, 300 (682 SE2d 381) (2009); see also Lott v. State, 303 Ga. App. 775, 775 (1) (694 SE2d 698) (2010).

        Miller v. State, 273 Ga. 831, 832 (546 SE2d 524) (2001) (punctuation omitted).

        See Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI; OCGA § 17-2-2 (a).

        Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900, 901-02 (2) (537 SE2d 80) (2000) (footnotes and punctuation omitted).

        Bentley v. State, 314 Ga. App. 599, 600 (1) (724 SE2d 890) (2012) (punctuation omitted).

        Chavez v. State, 306 Ga. App. 272, 273 (701 SE2d 902) (2010) (punctuation omitted).

        See Hargrave v. State, 311 Ga. App. 852, 854 (1) (717 SE2d 485) (2011) (holding that venue was proven based on victim’s testimony that molestation occurred in a specific residence and police officers testified that the residence in question was located in Fayette County).

        Chavez, 306 Ga. App. at 274 (punctuation omitted).

        Id.

        Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343, 348 (8) (676 SE2d 215) (2009) (punctuation omitted).

        Id. (punctuation omitted).

        Id. (punctuation omitted).

        See Bollinger v. State, 272 Ga. App. 688, 692 (2) (613 SE2d 209) (2005) (holding that allowing letters written by defendant to go into jury room during deliberations did not violate the continuing-witness rule); Vinyard v. State, 177 Ga. App. 188, 190 (1) (338 SE2d 766) (1985) (holding that letter written by defendant’s brother and sent from prison did not violate continuing-witness rule).

        See Dockery v. State, 308 Ga. App. 502, 506 (4) (707 SE2d 889) (2011).

        Id. at 506-07 (4) (punctuation omitted).

        Id. at 507 (4) (punctuation omitted).

        See Dunagan v. State, 255 Ga. App. 309, 311 (3) (565 SE2d 526) (2002) (holding that error committed by trial court in granting State’s continuing-witness objection that precluded jury from taking document from victim’s child protection agency file during deliberations was harmless); Morgan v. State, 226 Ga. App. 327, 329 (4) (c) (486 SE2d 632) (1997) (holding that error by trial court in refusing to allow examining nurse’s worksheet to go out with jury on ground that it violated the continuing-witness rule was harmless).

        Chapman v. State, 273 Ga. 348, 349-50 (2) (541 SE2d 634) (2001); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (III) (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984).

        Chapman, 273 Ga. at 350 (2).

        Id.

        Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. App. 898, 898 (1) (695 SE2d 334) (2010).

        See generally Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 612, 619 (277 SE2d 678) (1981) (noting that an explanation of the battered-woman’s syndrome, specifically why a person suffering from battered-woman’s syndrome would not leave her mate, would not inform police or friends, and would fear increased aggression against herself, should be provided by expert testimony as jurors could not ordinarily draw such conclusions for themselves); see also Sinns v. State, 248 Ga. 385, 387 (3) (283 SE2d 479) (1981) (citing Smith and noting that the battered-wife syndrome is a “complex subject” involving “a unique and almost mysterious area of human response and behavior”).

        See Adams v. State, 276 Ga. App. 319, 324 (6) (a) (623 SE2d 525) (2005).

        Id. (punctuation omitted); see Port v. State, 295 Ga. App. 109, 114 (2) (e) (671 SE2d 200) (2008) (holding that trial counsel’s failure to object to reference within a long e-mail that defendant owned weapons was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against defendant).

        See Adams, 276 Ga. App. at 324 (6) (a).


text:
    A12A1090.
    DeFLORIA et al. v. WALKER.
    (732 SE2d 121)
   Dillard, Judge.

Lawrence Z. DeFloria and the Department of Corrections appeal the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss Rufus Walker’s claim for damages related to a traffic accident, contending that because Walker failed to comply with ante-litem-notice requirements, his claims are barred by sovereign immunity. For the reasons set forth infra, we vacate the trial court’s order denying the motion and remand with direction.

Walker’s complaint alleges that on September 29, 2009, while riding his motorcycle in Toombs County, he was struck by a Department of Corrections vehicle driven by DeFloria, resulting in severe injuries. Walker sought to recover damages, including $152,874.49 for medical bills, property damage, and expenses incurred as a result of the accident. In the complaint, Walker asserted that an October 15, 2009 letter sent to Greg Shuford of the Department of Administrative Services served as a notice of claim pursuant to OCGA § 50-21-26, and that Shuford had thereafter exchanged correspondence regarding Walker’s accident until June 2011, when Walker made an offer to settle the claim. Walker’s offer was denied the following month, and he filed the complaint on September 29, 2011. Walker attached to his complaint copies of the October 15, 2009 letter and the correspondence that followed.

DeFloria and the Department of Corrections (collectively, “DOC”) filed an answer and a motion to dismiss. In the motion to dismiss, DOC argued that Walker had failed to attach to his complaint a copy of the required documentation to show compliance with the antelitem-notice provisions of OCGA § 50-21-26. More specifically, as to the October 15 letter, DOC alleged that the complaint failed to include “a copy of a receipt evidencing delivery of this letter to the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services . . . .” Thus, DOC argued that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The trial court summarily denied DOC’s motion to dismiss without findings of fact or conclusions of law, and this appeal by DOC follows. We review the trial court’s ruling on DOC’s motion to dismiss under the de novo standard of review.

On appeal, DOC argues that because Walker did not strictly comply with the notice provisions of OCGA § 50-21-26, his claim is barred by sovereign immunity and the trial court erred by denying the motion to dismiss. We agree.

OCGA § 50-21-26 provides, inter alia, that no person who has a tort claim against the state may bring an action against the state on that claim without first giving notice, which

shall be given in writing and shall be mailed by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, or delivered personally to and a receipt obtained from the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services. In addition, a copy shall be delivered personally to or mailed by first-class mail to the state government entity, the act or omissions of which are asserted as the basis of the claim.

Additionally, when a complaint is filed, it “must have a copy of the notice of claim presented to the Department of Administrative Services together with the certified mail or statutory overnight delivery receipt or receipt for other delivery attached as exhibits.” And if failure to attach such exhibits to the complaint is “not cured within 30 days after the state raises such issue by motion, then the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice . . . ,”

Compliance with the foregoing requirements is “a condition precedent to the claimant’s right to file suit against the [sjtate, and the courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate any such claims against the [sjtate unless and until the written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in OCGA § 50-21-26 (a).” And it is well established that strict compliance with the notice provisions is “a prerequisite to filing suit under the [Georgia Tort Claims Act], and substantial compliance therewith is insufficient.” Strict compliance is necessary because the Georgia Tort Claims Act “represents a limited waiver of the [s]tate’s sovereign immunity, crafted, as is constitutionally authorized, by our Legislature, and not subject to modification or abrogation by our courts.” Additionally, the state cannot “waive subject matter jurisdiction,” which is established by law, “and there is nothing parties to a suit can do to give a court jurisdiction over a matter that has not been conferred by law.”

In the case sub judice, DOC argues that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Walker did not give notice of his claim as required by statute and also did not attach to his complaint a copy of the required notice and the receipt for its delivery to the Risk Management Division. Walker, on the other hand, contends that his October 15 letter sufficed because the correspondence with the Department of Administrative Services’ employee served as acknowledgment of receipt.

Our review of the record shows that the October 15, 2009 letter was addressed to Greg Shuford, an adjustor for the Department of Administrative Services, and it referenced the September 29 accident and a specific claim number. Thereafter, Shuford and Walker’s son-in-law, to whom Walker gave express authority to deal on his behalf, communicated via e-mail regarding Walker’s prognosis and expenses. On December 17, 2009, Shuford offered $75,000 to compensate Walker for his injuries and to make direct payment to medical providers for accident-related charges. Walker’s representative rejected the offer within minutes.

In May 2010, Walker’s representative informed Shuford that the family was working to “put together all bills related to the accident in order to come up with a number to base the claim on.” On June 28, 2011, Walker’s representative wrote a letter to Shuford, seeking to “settle this case within the policy limits as stated in the Georgia Tort Claims Act.” Walker demanded settlement in the amount of $458,623.47, with the demand to “remain open until the close of business on Friday, July 29, 2011.” The letter warned that “[w]ith respect to the two year statute of limitations, if demand is not met by [the deadline], legal council [sic] will be sought.”

On July 11, 2011, a new representative on behalf of the Department of Administrative Services’ Risk Management Division responded to Walker’s letter and noted that they were unable to “find where there has been compliance with the [ante litem] notice provisions as required” by the Georgia Tort Claims Act, and the claim was denied. Thereafter, Walker filed suit, and the DOC moved to dismiss.

While we are sympathetic to Walker’s plight, Georgia law makes abundantly clear the need for strict compliance with the requirements of OCGA § 50-21-26 (a). In construing the notice requirements, the appellate courts of this state “have looked to the plain meaning of the statutory language.” And while the Supreme Court of Georgia has held that “the rule of strict compliance does not demand a hyper-technical construction that would not measurably advance the purposes of the GTCA’s notice provisions,” even in cases that arguably reflect some degree of leniency, the plaintiffs complied with the plain language of the ante-litem-notice provisions. Indeed, in one such case, our Supreme Court explicitly reaffirmed “that the GTCA must be strictly construed.” Suffice it to say, substantial compliance is not strict compliance. Strict compliance is exactly what it sounds like: strict. Thus, as we have previously warned, “[t]he explicit ante litem notice provision is ignored only at peril to a plaintiffs cause of action and serves as a condition precedent for bringing suit under the Act.”

Here, it is clear that Walker did not strictly comply with the ante-litem-notice requirements or the plain language of the statute in that it is undisputed that the October 15, 2009 letter to DOAS was not “mailed by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, or delivered personally to and a receipt obtained from the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services.” Further, there is no indication in the record that Walker complied with the requirement that a copy of the notice “be delivered personally to or mailed by first-class mail to the state government entity, the act or omissions of which are asserted as the basis of the claim” — here, the DOC. Thus, because Walker failed to strictly comply with the ante-litem-notice provisions of OCGA § 50-21-26 (a) (2), the trial court erred by denying the DOC’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss and remand for the entry of an order dismissing Walker’s complaint.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

Ellington, C. J., and Phipps, P. J., concur.

Decided September 6, 2012.

Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Jennifer L. Dalton, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Hube & Tucker, Josh D. Tucker, Douglas G. Exley, for appellee.

        See Welch v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 276 Ga. App. 664, 665 (624 SE2d 177) (2005) (“We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under the de novo standard of review.” (punctuation omitted)).

       OCGA § 50-21-26 (a) (2).

       OCGA § 50-21-26 (a) (4).

        Id.

        Cummings v. Ga. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822, 824 (653 SE2d 729) (2007) (punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 50-21-26 (a) (3).

        Cummings, 282 Ga. at 824; see also Kim v. Dep’t of Transp., 235 Ga. App. 480, 481 (2) (510 SE2d 50) (1998) (“By its own terms, the State Tort Claims Act must be strictly construed.”).

        Ga. Dep’t of Transp. v. Baldwin, 292 Ga. App. 816, 825 (9) (665 SE2d 898) (2008). See generally Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 713 (I), 715 (I) (B) (119 SC 2240, 144 LE2d 636) (1999) (“[A]s the [federal] Constitution’s structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today .... The generation that designed and adopted our federal system considered immunity from private suits central to sovereign dignity. When the Constitution was ratified, it was well established in English law that the Crown could not be sued without consent in its own courts . . . .”).

        Dempsey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 256 Ga. App. 291, 292 (568 SE2d 154) (2002) (punctuation omitted).

       It appears from the correspondence that Shuford mailed a check to Walker in November 2009 to cover the repair and diminished value of Walker’s motorcycle. We reject Walker’s argument that this in any way waived sovereign immunity or estopped the State from invoking same because “a government official may not waive or be estopped from invoking statutory notice requirements.” Dempsey, 256 Ga. App. at 294; see also State of Ga. v. Haynes, 285 Ga. App. 637, 640 (647 SE2d 331) (2007) (“[T]he government may not waive or be estopped from invoking statutory notice requirements.”).

        See Welch, 276 Ga. App. at 665 (holding that “because the [plaintiffs] did not strictly comply with the statutory provisions for sending ante litem notice, the trial court had no subj ect matter jurisdiction over the suit” (punctuation omitted)); Shelnutt v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 272 Ga. App. 109, 110 (611 SE2d 762) (2005) (same); see also Baskin v. Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 272 Ga. App. 355, 358 (2) (612 SE2d 565) (2005) (holding that dismissal was appropriate when plaintiff did not attach the required receipt from the Department of Administrative Services).

        Williams v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 272 Ga. 624, 625 (532 SE2d 401) (2000); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 69 (1st ed. 2012) (“The ordinary-meaning rule is the most fundamental semantic rule of interpretation.”).

        Cummings, 282 Ga. at 824.

        See id. at 825-26 (plaintiff complied with statute when she named the agency she believed to be responsible at the time she served her initial notice); Ga. Ports Auth. v. Harris, 274 Ga. 146, 150 (2) (549 SE2d 95) (2001) (holding that delivery by Federal Express satisfied the personal delivery requirement of OCGA § 50-21-26 and that receipt requirement was satisfied when plaintiff obtained a copy of the FedEx-ed letter that was stamped as “received” by DOAS); Norris v. Dep’t of Transp., 268 Ga. 192, 193 (486 SE2d 826) (1997) (holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after). Cf. Camp v. Coweta County, 280 Ga. 199, 201 (1) (625 SE2d 759) (2006) (construing the service of process and notice requirements of OCGA § 50-21-35). See generally Perdue v. Athens Technical College, 283 Ga. App. 404, 407 (641 SE2d 631) (2007) (discussing the Supreme Court’s holdings in Norris and Camp in the context that “[t]he strict compliance requirement does not. . . take precedence over the plain language or meaning of the statute”).

        Harris, 274 Ga. at 150 (2).

       In his brief, Walker all but concedes that he failed to strictly comply with the antelitem-notice provisions, noting that he “sufficiently complied with the requirements of OCGA 50-21-26.” (Emphasis supplied.) As our Supreme Court has rightly emphasized, “strict compliance with the notice provisions is a prerequisite to filing suit under the GTCA, and substantial compliance therewith is insufficient.” Cummings, 282 Ga. at 824.

       The Compact Oxford English Dictionary 1927 (2d ed. 1991) (defining “strict” as, inter alia, “exact, precise, not vague or loose”).

        Gambell v. Ga. Ports Auth., 276 Ga. App. 115, 116 (1) (622 SE2d 464) (2005) (punctuation omitted); accord Howard v. State of Ga., 226 Ga. App. 543, 546 (2) (487 SE2d 112) (1997).

       Walker’s attempt to downplay the importance or need for strict compliance with the ante-litem-notice provisions of OCGA § 50-21-26 (a) (2) is unavailing, as is his misplaced reliance on Savage v. E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc., 295 Ga. App. 319 (672 SE2d 1) (2008), and Williams v. Department of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 (532 SE2d 401) (2000), in doing so. While it is certainly true, as Walker claims, that this Court in Savage noted that the purpose of the ante-litem-notice requirement is to “ensure that the state receives adequate notice of the claim to facilitate settlement before the filing of a lawsuit,” we went on to explain, in the very next sentence, that the GTCA “requires strict compliance with the ante litem notice requirement” and that “substantial compliance is inadequate under the Act.” Savage, 295 Ga. App. at 323 (3) (punctuation omitted); see also Williams, 272 Ga. at 625-26 (noting the need for compliance with the plain meaning of Georgia’s ante-litem-notice provisions).

        See OCGA § 50-21-26 (a) (2).

        See id.

        See Johnson v. E.A. Mann & Co., 273 Ga. App. 716, 722 (616 SE2d 98) (2005) (trial court erred in denying dismissal of complaint when plaintiff failed to strictly comply with ante-litemnotice requirements); Dempsey, 256 Ga. App. at 293-94 (trial court properly dismissed complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction when letter, inter alia, was not sent by certified mail or personally delivered, and court rejected argument that proof of actual notice satisfied the purpose of the notice requirements); see also Welch, 276 Ga. App. at 665; Shelnutt, 272 Ga. App. at 110-11; Baskin, 272 Ga. App. at 358 (2).

       We need not address DOC’s other enumerations of error as they relate to deficiencies in the ante-litem notice. See Johnson, 273 Ga. App. at 722.