Timothy Grant v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 25, 2016
DocketA16A1256
StatusPublished

This text of Timothy Grant v. State (Timothy Grant 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
Timothy Grant v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 13, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1256. TIMOTHY GRANT v. THE STATE.

On September 2, 2014, Timothy Grant, while represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea to child molestation. He signed a “Change of Plea” form in which he “waive[d] any right to modification of the sentence to be imposed pursuant to this agreement, and agree[d] that [he] shall not seek modification of said sentence in the future.” On July 31, 2015, Grant filed a pro se motion to vacate void sentence, arguing that the court failed to consider whether he was eligible for “deviation from the minimum term of imprisonment” when sentencing. The trial court denied the motion, and Grant filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. A direct appeal may lie from an order denying or dismissing a motion to correct a void sentence if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void or illegal. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). By pleading guilty, however, Grant "waived all defenses except that the indictment charged no crime." Kemp v. Simpson, 278 Ga. 439, 439-440 (603 SE2d 267) (2004). Moreover, a sentence is void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow, Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 571 (748 SE2d 446) (2013), and Grant does not contend that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. He has, therefore, failed to raise a valid void-sentence claim. Because Grant did not raise a colorable argument that his sentence is void, the trial court's denial of his motion is not subject to direct appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 04/13/2016 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

Related

Harper v. State
686 S.E.2d 786 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2009)
Burg v. State
676 S.E.2d 465 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Kemp v. Simpson
603 S.E.2d 267 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004)
von Thomas v. State
748 S.E.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Timothy Grant v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-grant-v-state-gactapp-2016.