Antonio Davis sought an extraordinary motion for new trial more than thirty days after his criminal judgment. He alleged that he had not knowingly waived counsel and that remote expert testimony violated confrontation requirements. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that constitutional claims of this kind must be pursued through habeas corpus when that remedy is available, not through an extraordinary motion for new trial. The motion was therefore not a proper vehicle for deciding Davis’s allegations, regardless of their merits. Because the trial court denied the motion instead of dismissing it, the appellate court vacated the order and remanded with direction to enter a dismissal.