John Thurman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

John Thurman v. State

DecidedDecember 25, 2014

DocketA15A0494

StatusPublished

This text of John Thurman v. State (John Thurman 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

John Thurman v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 19, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0494. JOHN THURMAN v. THE STATE.

In 2006, John Thurman pled guilty to a number of offenses, including armed robbery. In 2014, Thurman filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that the trial court should “install a more lenient sentence” because “errors in his plea colloquy” raise a question as to the voluntariness of his plea. The trial court denied the motion, and Thurman now appeals. Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, whichever is later. 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 when Thurman filed his motion, a trial court may modify a sentence only if it is void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). A sentence is void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). “Assertions taking issue with the procedure employed in imposing a valid sentence or questioning the fairness of an imposed sentence do not allege a sentence is void.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Coleman v. State, 305 Ga. App. 680, 680-681 (700 SE2d 668) (2010). Here, Thurman argues that his sentence should be modified because his plea was not voluntary and intelligent. This is a challenge to the validity of his convictions, not his sentence, and does not assert grounds upon which a sentence can be declared void. See Brown v. State, 297 Ga. App. 738 (678 SE2d 172) (2009). Because Thurman does not argue that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for his offenses, he has not raised a colorable void sentence argument. Accordingly, his appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 12/19/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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 19, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0494. JOHN THURMAN v. THE STATE.

In 2006, John Thurman pled guilty to a number of offenses, including armed robbery. In 2014, Thurman filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that the trial court should “install a more lenient sentence” because “errors in his plea colloquy” raise a question as to the voluntariness of his plea. The trial court denied the motion, and Thurman now appeals. Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, whichever is later. 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 when Thurman filed his motion, a trial court may modify a sentence only if it is void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). A sentence is void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). “Assertions taking issue with the procedure employed in imposing a valid sentence or questioning the fairness of an imposed sentence do not allege a sentence is void.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Coleman v. State, 305 Ga. App. 680, 680-681 (700 SE2d 668) (2010). Here, Thurman argues that his sentence should be modified because his plea was not voluntary and intelligent. This is a challenge to the validity of his convictions, not his sentence, and does not assert grounds upon which a sentence can be declared void. See Brown v. State, 297 Ga. App. 738 (678 SE2d 172) (2009). Because Thurman does not argue that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for his offenses, he has not raised a colorable void sentence argument. Accordingly, his appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 12/19/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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)

John Thurman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-thurman-v-state-gactapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack