Demarcio H. Stodghill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Demarcio H. Stodghill v. State

DecidedJune 2, 2021

DocketA21D0308

StatusPublished

This text of Demarcio H. Stodghill v. State (Demarcio H. Stodghill 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.

Bluebook

Demarcio H. Stodghill v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 14, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0308. DEMARCO H. STODGHILL v. THE STATE.

In 2018, Demarco Stodghill pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 20 years in prison to serve 15. In 2021, Stodghill filed a document entitled “Evidentiary Hearing,” in which he requested that the trial court quash his conviction and the indictment on the ground that it was fatally defective and void.1 The trial court denied the motion, and this application for discretionary appeal followed. However, we lack jurisdiction. “[A] petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case.” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009); see also Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 493-494 (1) & (2) (659 SE2d 875) (2008) (challenge to validity of indictment is challenge to conviction). Our Supreme Court has made clear that a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case” and that an appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (2). Thus, Stodghill is not authorized to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner.2 See Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (1) and

1 Stodghill has not submitted a copy of his filing with his application materials, in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e). 2 Stodghill’s filing cannot be construed by this Court as a motion in arrest of judgment as it was not filed within the time permitted for such a motion. See OCGA § 17-9-61. (2). Accordingly, this application for discretionary review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/14/2021 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 14, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0308. DEMARCO H. STODGHILL v. THE STATE.

In 2018, Demarco Stodghill pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 20 years in prison to serve 15. In 2021, Stodghill filed a document entitled “Evidentiary Hearing,” in which he requested that the trial court quash his conviction and the indictment on the ground that it was fatally defective and void.1 The trial court denied the motion, and this application for discretionary appeal followed. However, we lack jurisdiction. “[A] petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case.” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009); see also Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 493-494 (1) & (2) (659 SE2d 875) (2008) (challenge to validity of indictment is challenge to conviction). Our Supreme Court has made clear that a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case” and that an appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (2). Thus, Stodghill is not authorized to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner.2 See Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (1) and

1 Stodghill has not submitted a copy of his filing with his application materials, in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e). 2 Stodghill’s filing cannot be construed by this Court as a motion in arrest of judgment as it was not filed within the time permitted for such a motion. See OCGA § 17-9-61. (2). Accordingly, this application for discretionary review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/14/2021 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Demarcio H. Stodghill v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demarcio-h-stodghill-v-state-gactapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack