Gearin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gearin v. State

620 S.E.2d 502, 275 Ga. App. 264, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 2746, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 943

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 30, 2005

DocketA04A0968

StatusPublished

This text of 620 S.E.2d 502 (Gearin 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

Gearin v. State, 620 S.E.2d 502, 275 Ga. App. 264, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 2746, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 943 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackburn, Presiding Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In its first appearance, Timothy Steven Gearin, following his guilty plea¹ and conviction for cruelty to children in the first degree and enhanced sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-17, challenged the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-10-17 and the propriety of the enhanced sentence he received pursuant to that statute. Gearin v. State (“Gearin I”).2 Because “our Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been called into question,” we found that we had no jurisdiction to consider the question. (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 189 (3).

The case then went up to the Supreme Court on certiorari, whereupon it was remanded to this Court for reconsideration in light of Botts v. State,³ an opinion issued approximately two months after Gearin I. In Botts, the Supreme Court held that “OCGA § 17-10-17 is too vague to justify the imposition of enhanced criminal punishment for its violation,” and ruled the statute unconstitutional. Id. at 540.

A review of the record of the plea shows that the trial court enhanced Gearin’s sentence in accordance with OCGA § 17-10-17. Since the sentence was entered based on an unconstitutional statute, it was void. The sentence is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.

Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.

Ruffin, C. J., Andrews, P. J., Johnson, P. J., Smith, P. J., Barnes, Miller, Ellington, Phipps, Mikell, Adams and Bernes, JJ., concur. [265]*265Decided August 30, 2005. Lloyd J. Matthews, for appellant. Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, James L. Wright III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blackburn, Presiding Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In its first appearance, Timothy Steven Gearin, following his guilty plea¹ and conviction for cruelty to children in the first degree and enhanced sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-17, challenged the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-10-17 and the propriety of the enhanced sentence he received pursuant to that statute. Gearin v. State (“Gearin I”).2 Because “our Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been called into question,” we found that we had no jurisdiction to consider the question. (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 189 (3).

The case then went up to the Supreme Court on certiorari, whereupon it was remanded to this Court for reconsideration in light of Botts v. State,³ an opinion issued approximately two months after Gearin I. In Botts, the Supreme Court held that “OCGA § 17-10-17 is too vague to justify the imposition of enhanced criminal punishment for its violation,” and ruled the statute unconstitutional. Id. at 540.

A review of the record of the plea shows that the trial court enhanced Gearin’s sentence in accordance with OCGA § 17-10-17. Since the sentence was entered based on an unconstitutional statute, it was void. The sentence is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.

Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.

Ruffin, C. J., Andrews, P. J., Johnson, P. J., Smith, P. J., Barnes, Miller, Ellington, Phipps, Mikell, Adams and Bernes, JJ., concur. [265]*265Decided August 30, 2005. Lloyd J. Matthews, for appellant. Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, James L. Wright III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 S.E.2d 502, 275 Ga. App. 264, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 2746, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gearin-v-state-gactapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack