Ian Tew v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 6, 2013
DocketA12A2038
StatusPublished

This text of Ian Tew v. State (Ian Tew 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
Ian Tew v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

THIRD DIVISION MILLER, P. J., RAY and BRANCH, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

March 6, 2013

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A12A2038. TEW v. THE STATE.

RAY, Judge.

Ian David Tew pled guilty to the offense of statutory rape.1 He appeals the trial

court’s ruling that he was not legally eligible for first offender treatment. Because the

trial court did not err in finding that the law did not permit Tew to be sentenced as a

first offender, we affirm.

1 OCGA § 16-6-3 (a). Tew was indicted on nine counts,2 including one count of statutory rape,3 based

upon a sexual encounter that occurred when Tew was 22 years old and the victim was

14 years old. On April 18, 2012, Tew entered a plea of guilty to statutory rape,

admitting that he picked the victim up from her house, drove her to his house, had sex

with her, and then drove her to Nashville. At the sentencing hearing, Tew requested

that he receive first offender treatment and argued that he should not have to register

as a sexual offender. The trial court concluded that Tew was not legally eligible for

first offender treatment; required him to register as a sexual offender; sentenced him

to ten years to be served on probation; and imposed sexual offender conditions on

probation. This appeal ensued.

2 Tew was indicted with the following charges: two counts of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, statutory rape, interference with custody, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, interstate interference with custody, theft by receiving stolen property, and theft by taking. After Tew pled guilty to statutory rape, the remaining eight charges were dismissed by the State. 3 OCGA § 16-6-3 (a) provides: A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.

2 In his sole enumeration of error, Tew contends that the trial court erred in

ruling that he was not legally eligible for first offender consideration. Specifically,

Tew argues that OCGA § 17-10-6.2, which governs the sentencing of persons

convicted of sexual offenses, including statutory rape,4 allows the trial court to

exercise its discretion to grant Tew first offender status under OCGA § 42-8-60.

As an initial matter, we note that whether or not to sentence a defendant under

the First Offender Statute, OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq., lies entirely within the discretion

of the trial court.5 However, “that discretion is abused if the court refuses to consider

first offender treatment based upon an erroneous expression of belief that the law

does not permit the exercise of such discretion.”6 Because whether or not the trial

4 OCGA §16-6-3 (b) provides that if a person convicted of statutory rape is 21 years of age or older, “such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this subsection of the offense of statutory rape shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.” 5 (Citations omitted.) Camaron v. State, 246 Ga. App. 80, 82 (1) (539 SE2d 577) (2000). 6 (Citation omitted.) Planas v. State, 296 Ga. App. 51, 52 (1) (673 SE2d 566) (2009).

3 court abused its discretion turns on the proper interpretation of OCGA § 17-10-6.2,

it is “a question of law, which is reviewed de novo on appeal.” 7 Further, the defendant

seeking first offender treatment has the burden on appeal to establish upon the record

that the trial court based its decision upon an erroneous expression of belief, and

absent “evidence in the record demonstrating error, the trial court is presumed to have

acted properly in imposing [the] sentence.”8

OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (b) sets forth the mandatory sentence guidelines for persons

convicted of a sexual offense. It provides that:

[e]xcept as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section . . . any person convicted of a sexual offense shall be sentenced to a split sentence which shall include the minimum term of imprisonment specified in the Code section applicable to the offense. No portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court and the sentence shall include, in addition to the mandatory imprisonment, an additional probated sentence of at least one year. No person convicted of a sexual offense shall be sentenced as a first offender pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42, relating to probation for first offenders, or any

7 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Nunnally v. State, 311 Ga. App. 558, 559 (1) (716 SE2d 608) (2011). 8 (Citations omitted.) Camaron, supra.

4 other provision of Georgia law relating to the sentencing of first offenders.9

Subsection (c) (1) of OCGA § 17-10-6.2 further provides that “[i]n the court’s

discretion, the court may deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence as set forth

in subsection (b) of this Code section, or any portion thereof, provided that”10 the

defendant satisfied all six requirements set forth in subsection (c) (1) (A) - (F).

Ultimately the trial court ruled that Tew satisfied all six requirements of the

statute and deviated from the mandatory sentence guidelines of OCGA § 17-10-6.2

(b) for the purpose of sentencing Tew to a probated sentence. However, it found that

Tew was not eligible for first offender status, finding that the phrase “or any portion

thereof” in Subsection (c) (1) applied only to first two sentences of Subsection (b)

setting forth mandatory minimum sentence guidelines, and not to the final sentence

of Subsection (b), which precludes defendants convicted of certain enumerated sexual

offenses from receiving first offender status.

9 (Emphasis supplied.) 10 (Emphasis supplied.)

5 Tew argues that the phrase “or any portion thereof” in Subsection (c) (1) refers

to the entirety of Subsection (b) and not simply to the first two sentences referring to

the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. We disagree.

When considering the meaning of a statute, we apply the following analysis:

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

Related

Planas v. State
673 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Camaron v. State
539 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Nunnally v. State
716 S.E.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
AILARA v. State
717 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Fulton County v. Colon
730 S.E.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Aimwell, Inc. v. McLendon Enterprises, Inc.
734 S.E.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ian Tew v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ian-tew-v-state-gactapp-2013.