Hector Bautista v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hector Bautista v. State

DecidedAugust 11, 2022

DocketA23A0034

StatusPublished

This text of Hector Bautista v. State (Hector Bautista 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

Hector Bautista v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 11, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0034. HECTOR BAUTISTA v. THE STATE.

Following a January 2018 jury trial on a charge of malice murder, Hector Bautista was convicted of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense and was sentenced to serve 20 years in confinement. In 2020, this Court affirmed Bautista’s conviction. Bautista v. State, Case No. A19A2125 (decided January 16, 2020). Over two years later, in June 2022, Bautista filed a pro se pleading titled “Plea in Absentia.” In this pleading, Bautista purported to accept the State’s pretrial plea offer of a recommended sentence of 10 years to serve in confinement in exchange for Bautista’s guilty plea to a reduced charge of felony involuntary manslaughter. The trial court dismissed the filing as an invalid attempt by Bautista to challenge his conviction and sentence. Bautista then filed this direct appeal from the order of dismissal. As explained below, this appeal must also be dismissed. The pleading filed by Bautista shows that regardless of its nomenclature, it sought to set aside or vacate his conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter. See State v. Bell, 274 Ga. 719, 719 (1) (559 SE2d 477) (2002) (when a court considers pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature); Sledge v. State, 312 Ga. App. 97, 98 (1) (717 SE2d 682) (2011) (“[c]ourts should examine the substance of a motion, rather than its nomenclature, to determine what sort of relief is sought”). As the Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear, however, a post-conviction motion challenging the validity of a conviction and seeking to set aside or vacate the same is not a valid procedure in a criminal case. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Williams v. State, 283 Ga. 94, 94 (656 SE2d 144) (2008). Thus, any effort to appeal from the denial of such a motion must be dismissed. Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/11/2022 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,____________________ August 11, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0034. HECTOR BAUTISTA v. THE STATE.

Following a January 2018 jury trial on a charge of malice murder, Hector Bautista was convicted of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense and was sentenced to serve 20 years in confinement. In 2020, this Court affirmed Bautista’s conviction. Bautista v. State, Case No. A19A2125 (decided January 16, 2020). Over two years later, in June 2022, Bautista filed a pro se pleading titled “Plea in Absentia.” In this pleading, Bautista purported to accept the State’s pretrial plea offer of a recommended sentence of 10 years to serve in confinement in exchange for Bautista’s guilty plea to a reduced charge of felony involuntary manslaughter. The trial court dismissed the filing as an invalid attempt by Bautista to challenge his conviction and sentence. Bautista then filed this direct appeal from the order of dismissal. As explained below, this appeal must also be dismissed. The pleading filed by Bautista shows that regardless of its nomenclature, it sought to set aside or vacate his conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter. See State v. Bell, 274 Ga. 719, 719 (1) (559 SE2d 477) (2002) (when a court considers pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature); Sledge v. State, 312 Ga. App. 97, 98 (1) (717 SE2d 682) (2011) (“[c]ourts should examine the substance of a motion, rather than its nomenclature, to determine what sort of relief is sought”). As the Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear, however, a post-conviction motion challenging the validity of a conviction and seeking to set aside or vacate the same is not a valid procedure in a criminal case. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Williams v. State, 283 Ga. 94, 94 (656 SE2d 144) (2008). Thus, any effort to appeal from the denial of such a motion must be dismissed. Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/11/2022 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)

Hector Bautista v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hector-bautista-v-state-gactapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack