Quentin M. Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Quentin M. Hill v. State

DecidedNovember 17, 2020

DocketA21A0611

StatusPublished

This text of Quentin M. Hill v. State (Quentin M. Hill 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

Quentin M. Hill v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 13, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0611. QUENTIN M. HILL v. THE STATE.

In 2013, a jury convicted Quentin M. Hill of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation, and this Court affirmed his convictions. See Hill v. State, 331 Ga. App. 280 (769 SE2d 179) (2015). Hill subsequently filed a pro se motion to set aside his convictions, alleging that the prosecutor’s re-indictment of him amounted to vindictive prosecution, the indictment was defective on its face, the indictment was subject to a special demurrer, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to file a special demurrer to the indictment. The trial court denied Hill’s motion, and Hill filed this pro se direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. “It has been held many times that a motion to set aside a judgment is inappropriate in a criminal case.” Lacey v. State, 253 Ga. 711, 711 (324 SE2d 471) (1985). According to the Georgia Supreme Court, a motion to set aside or vacate a conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case[,]” and an appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal. Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Here, Hill’s claims regarding his indictment constitute attacks on the validity of his convictions. See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) (659 SE2d 875) (2008) (attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). Hill is not authorized to collaterally attack his convictions in this manner. See Roberts, supra; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) & (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/13/2020 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,____________________ November 13, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0611. QUENTIN M. HILL v. THE STATE.

In 2013, a jury convicted Quentin M. Hill of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation, and this Court affirmed his convictions. See Hill v. State, 331 Ga. App. 280 (769 SE2d 179) (2015). Hill subsequently filed a pro se motion to set aside his convictions, alleging that the prosecutor’s re-indictment of him amounted to vindictive prosecution, the indictment was defective on its face, the indictment was subject to a special demurrer, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to file a special demurrer to the indictment. The trial court denied Hill’s motion, and Hill filed this pro se direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. “It has been held many times that a motion to set aside a judgment is inappropriate in a criminal case.” Lacey v. State, 253 Ga. 711, 711 (324 SE2d 471) (1985). According to the Georgia Supreme Court, a motion to set aside or vacate a conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case[,]” and an appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal. Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Here, Hill’s claims regarding his indictment constitute attacks on the validity of his convictions. See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) (659 SE2d 875) (2008) (attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). Hill is not authorized to collaterally attack his convictions in this manner. See Roberts, supra; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) & (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/13/2020 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)

Quentin M. Hill v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quentin-m-hill-v-state-gactapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack