Alan Konwinski v. State
This text of Alan Konwinski v. State (Alan Konwinski v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________ April 27, 2017
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A17A1474. ALAN KONWINSKI v. THE STATE.
In 2009, Alan Konwinski pled guilty to rape, two counts of aggravated sodomy, and sexual exploitation of a minor. He subsequently filed a pro se motion to set aside a void sentence and withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion, and we dismissed Konwinski’s appeals because they were untimely and moot. Case Nos. A16A1984, A16A1985 (decided July 11, 2016). Konwinski then filed a petition to correct sentence and withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his sentence for sexual exploitation of a minor was void because it violated OCGA § 17-10-6.2’s split sentence requirement for sexual offenses. The trial court granted Konwinski’s petition, vacated the sentence, plea, and conviction entered on the sexual exploitation of a minor count, dismissed the petition with respect to the other count, and directed the State to place Konwinski on the next available trial calendar. Konwinski appeals from this order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Because this action remains pending before the trial court, Konwinski was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the order granting his petition to correct his sentence and withdraw his guilty plea. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Keller v. State, 275 Ga. 680, 680-681 (571 SE2d 806) (2002) (a criminal case remains pending until the court enters a written judgment of conviction and sentence); Crolley v. State, 182 Ga. App. 2, 2-3 (1) (354 SE2d 864) (1987) (same). Konwinski’s failure to follow the requisite procedures deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/27/2017 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Alan Konwinski v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alan-konwinski-v-state-gactapp-2017.