Marcel Gordon v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    February 10, 2017
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A17D0276. MARCEL GORDON v. THE STATE.
    In 2005, Marcel Gordon pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and eight
    counts of aggravated assault.1 In June 2016, Gordon filed a motion to vacate a void
    sentence.2 On December 19, 2016, the trial court denied the motion, and Gordon filed
    this application for discretionary review. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
    First, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of
    entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA
    § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not
    made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 
    190 Ga. App. 734
     (380 SE2d 57)
    (1989). Because Gordon filed his discretionary application on January 25, 2017, 37
    days after the trial court issued its order, his application is untimely.
    Second, even if Gordon’s application had been timely filed, this Court would
    still lack jurisdiction. “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to
    claims that – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the
    sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically
    because it exceeds the most severe punishment for which the applicable penal statute
    provides.” Von Thomas v. State, 
    293 Ga. 569
    , 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Gordon
    1
    This is Gordon’s second appearance before this Court. Previously, we
    dismissed as untimely Gordon’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for
    an out-of-time appeal. See Case No. A15A0546 (decided December 8, 2014).
    2
    Gordon violated this Court’s rules by failing to include a copy of the motion
    filed below with his application materials. See Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e).
    asserts that his sentence is void because the trial court erred in failing to merge certain
    offenses. Gordon’s merger argument is a challenge to his convictions, not to his
    sentence. See Williams v. State, 
    287 Ga. 192
     (695 SE2d 244) (2010). Thus, Gordon
    has not raised a valid void-sentence claim.
    For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider Gordon’s application, which
    is hereby DISMISSED.
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    02/10/2017
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A17D0276

Filed Date: 2/22/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/22/2017