Smith v. State , 298 Ga. 487 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • In the Supreme Court of Georgia
    Decided: January 19, 2016
    S15A1647. SMITH v. THE STATE.
    HUNSTEIN, Justice.
    Appellant Tiara Smith appeals from the trial court’s denial of what she
    styled as an “Extraordinary Motion for New Trial.” We affirm.
    In September 2007, Smith pled guilty to two counts of felony murder, two
    counts of serious injury by vehicle, feticide, and felony fleeing and attempting
    to elude; she was sentenced to life imprisonment. In December 2012, Smith
    filed an extraordinary motion for new trial asserting that she had discovered new
    evidence establishing that she is not guilty of felony murder. The trial court
    denied the motion. On appeal, Smith continues to argue that she has newly
    discovered evidence that undermines her felony murder conviction and that the
    trial court erroneously denied her motion.
    As the trial court correctly recognized, an extraordinary motion for new
    trial is not a remedy available to Smith because she pled guilty. See Davis v.
    State, 
    274 Ga. 865
    , 866 (561 SE2d 119) (2002) (“‘One who has entered a plea
    of guilty cannot move for a new trial, as there was no trial.’”). Construing
    Smith’s pleading as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea or a motion in arrest
    of judgment is equally ineffectual because “[b]oth sorts of motions must be filed
    within the same term of court at which the guilty plea or judgment being
    challenged was entered.” Hagan v. State, 
    290 Ga. 353
    , 353 (720 SE2d 645)
    (2012). Indeed, “‘after the expiration of the term and of the time for filing an
    appeal from the conviction, the only remedy available to the defendant for
    withdrawing a plea is through habeas corpus proceedings.’” Harris v. State, 
    278 Ga. 805
    , 806 (2) (606 SE2d 248) (2004). Smith’s motion, however, cannot be
    construed as a habeas corpus petition; not only was the motion filed outside the
    four-year limitations period imposed by OCGA § 9-14-42 (c), but it was also
    filed in the county in which Smith was convicted rather than the county in which
    she is incarcerated. See OCGA § 9-14-43. See also Thomas v. State, 
    291 Ga. 18
    (727 SE2d 123) (2012). Accordingly, irrespective of how Smith’s motion
    is construed, it is improper and untimely, and she is not entitled to relief.
    Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S15A1647

Citation Numbers: 298 Ga. 487, 782 S.E.2d 17, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 80

Judges: Hunstein

Filed Date: 1/19/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/7/2024