Bankston v. State

837 S.E.2d 788, 307 Ga. 656

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: January 13, 2020
• Docket: S19A1551
• Status: Published

Opinion

307 Ga. 656 FINAL COPY

S19A1551. BANKSTON v. THE STATE.

WARREN, Justice.

Appellant Clinton Bankston appeals the trial court’s denial in

part and dismissal in part of his pro se motion seeking to vacate his

convictions and to withdraw his guilty pleas stemming from the

murders of five people. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in

part, vacate in part, and remand the case to the trial court.

In September 1987, a Clarke County grand jury indicted

Bankston for the murders of five people and other crimes that he

committed when he was 15 and 16 years old. The trial court denied

Bankston’s pre-trial motion to bar the imposition of the death

penalty, but on April 20, 1988, this Court reversed, ruling that

OCGA § 17-9-3 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty

against Bankston because he had not reached his seventeenth

birthday at the time he committed the offenses. See Bankston v.

State, 258 Ga. 188 (367 SE2d 36) (1988). On May 13, 1988, Bankston pled guilty but mentally ill to five counts of malice murder. The

other charges were nolle prossed, and he was sentenced to five

consecutive life sentences.

In 2019, Bankston filed a pro se motion in Clarke County to

“vacate void Judgment of Conviction, OCGA § 17-9-4.” That motion

sought, in substance, to vacate his convictions and to withdraw his

guilty pleas. In support of the motion, Bankston argued, among

other things, that his plea counsel had provided constitutionally

ineffective assistance, that the trial court failed to afford him the

benefits of certain processes and protections of the juvenile court

system, and that the trial court did not properly inquire into his

mental competency. The trial court denied the motion to the extent

it sought to vacate Bankston’s convictions, rejecting on the merits

Bankston’s claim that his convictions were void. The trial court

dismissed the motion to the extent Bankston sought to withdraw his

pleas, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim

because it was untimely. Proceeding pro se, Bankston filed this

appeal.

2 1. Bankston contends that the trial court erred in denying his

motion to the extent it sought to vacate his convictions. A motion

to vacate a conviction, however, is not an appropriate remedy in a

criminal case and is a nullity. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218

(686 SE2d 786) (2009). Accordingly, to the extent that Bankston’s

motion sought to vacate his convictions, the trial court should have

dismissed it rather than denied it on the merits. We therefore

vacate that part of the trial court’s judgment and remand the case

with direction to dismiss that part of the motion. See Ricks v. State,

307 Ga. 168, 168 (835 SE2d 179) (2019) (holding that the trial court

should have dismissed rather than denied a motion that was

unauthorized and a nullity and explaining that we therefore had to

vacate the trial court’s order and remand with direction to dismiss

the motion); Dos Santos v. State, 307 Ga. 151, 153 (834 SE2d 733)

(2019) (same). “No appeal will be available from that dismissal

order.” Id. at 160.

2. Bankston also contends that the trial court erred in

dismissing his motion to the extent it sought to withdraw his guilty

3 pleas. However, a “trial court lacks jurisdiction to permit the

withdrawal of a guilty plea once the term of court has expired in

which the defendant was sentenced.” Colquitt v. State, 307 Ga. ___,

___ (834 SE2d 52) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted).

“Because the [1988] term of court in which [Bankston] entered his

plea expired decades ago, the trial court did not have jurisdiction”

over Bankston’s motion to withdraw. Id. The trial court therefore

properly dismissed Bankston’s motion to the extent it sought to

withdraw his guilty pleas. See id.; Dupree v. State, 279 Ga. 613, 614

(619 SE2d 608) (2005).

Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part, and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED JANUARY 13, 2020. Murder. Clarke Superior Court. Before Judge Haggard. Clinton Bankston, pro se. Kenneth W. Mauldin, District Attorney, Brian V. Patterson,

4 Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.