as untimely. OCGA § 5-6-48 (a) (1). The judicially-sparked movement to empower trial courts with the same ability to dismiss cases as appellate courts has not been without pause. In addition to my expression of reservation in Attwell, the Court of Appeals has set out “the strictly limited circumstances” under which a trial court may properly dismiss an appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-48 (c), noted the appellate decisions allowing trial court encroachment on what was formerly the exclusive domain of the appellate courts, and declined “to divest [the appellate courts] of the responsibility for delineating the scope of appellate jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 and to place that authority on overburdened trial courts.” Castleberry’s Food Co. v. Smith, supra, 205 Ga. App. 860 (1) (<HOLDING>). See also Rodriguez v. Nunez, 252 Ga. App. 56
holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal holding that a hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal is not required if the parties are given an opportunity to respond on the record holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold an oral hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellant was afforded a full opportunity to respond to the motion holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review holding that the granting of an application to file an appeal out of time is considered part of the direct appeal process under oklahoma law