James D. Boatner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

James D. Boatner v. State

DecidedDecember 24, 2019

DocketA20A0743

StatusPublished

This text of James D. Boatner v. State (James D. Boatner 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

James D. Boatner v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 09, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0743. JAMES D. BOATNER v. THE STATE.

In 2016, James D. Boatner was convicted of aggravated assault and other crimes. It does not appear that he appealed his convictions. Boatner now appeals from the trial court’s August 2019 denial of his request to “restructure” his sentence, which the trial court construed as a motion to modify the sentence. However, we lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may correct or reduce a sentence during the year after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, whichever is later. See Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). Once this statutory period expires, as it had here, a trial court may modify a sentence only if it is void. See Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). “A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow.” (Citation omitted.) Id. Therefore, in order to support a motion for sentence modification filed outside the statutory time period of OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a defendant must demonstrate that the sentence imposes punishment not allowed by law. Frazier, supra. Boatner has not done so. In his motion, Boatner did not argue that his sentence exceeds the maximum punishment authorized by law. Rather, he requested that his sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively because he has made “all rehabilitative efforts possible.” While Boatner’s actions are commendable, his motion does not raise a valid void sentence claim. This Court is therefore without jurisdiction to review the trial court’s ruling. See Frazier, supra. Accordingly, Boatner’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/09/2019 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,____________________ December 09, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0743. JAMES D. BOATNER v. THE STATE.

In 2016, James D. Boatner was convicted of aggravated assault and other crimes. It does not appear that he appealed his convictions. Boatner now appeals from the trial court’s August 2019 denial of his request to “restructure” his sentence, which the trial court construed as a motion to modify the sentence. However, we lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may correct or reduce a sentence during the year after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, whichever is later. See Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). Once this statutory period expires, as it had here, a trial court may modify a sentence only if it is void. See Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). “A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow.” (Citation omitted.) Id. Therefore, in order to support a motion for sentence modification filed outside the statutory time period of OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a defendant must demonstrate that the sentence imposes punishment not allowed by law. Frazier, supra. Boatner has not done so. In his motion, Boatner did not argue that his sentence exceeds the maximum punishment authorized by law. Rather, he requested that his sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively because he has made “all rehabilitative efforts possible.” While Boatner’s actions are commendable, his motion does not raise a valid void sentence claim. This Court is therefore without jurisdiction to review the trial court’s ruling. See Frazier, supra. Accordingly, Boatner’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/09/2019 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)

James D. Boatner v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-d-boatner-v-state-gactapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack