Terrance Moore v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    September 06, 2017
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A18A0140. TERRANCE MOORE v. THE STATE.
    In 2005, a jury found Terrance Moore guilty of armed robbery and possession
    of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and the trial court imposed a sentence
    of twenty years’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years on probation. This Court
    affirmed the denial of Moore’s motion for a new trial following his judgment of
    conviction in an unpublished decision in 2008, and our remittitur issued later that
    year. Moore v. State, No. A07A1933 (Feb. 7, 2008). Between 2012 and 2016, Moore
    filed multiple motions seeking to modify his sentence, which the trial court denied in
    March 2016.
    In April 2017, Moore filed an “Amended Motion for Sentence Modification.”
    In his April 2017 motion, Moore sought to amend a motion to modify sentence that,
    according to Moore, he previously had filed on July 25, 2005, and which remained
    pending before the trial court. The July 2005 motion identified by Moore as the
    allegedly pending motion to modify sentence – which Moore attached to his April
    2017 motion – in fact is the motion for a new trial that he filed immediately following
    his conviction. The trial court dismissed Moore’s April 2017 motion on the ground
    that it previously had denied his motion for a new trial in May 2007. Moore then
    filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.
    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
    , 348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010).
    Once this statutory period expires, a trial court may modify only a void sentence. 
    Id. A sentence
    is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Jones
    v. State, 
    278 Ga. 669
    , 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). When a sentence falls within the
    statutory range of punishment, it is not void and is not subject to modification beyond
    the time provided in § 17-10-1 (f). See 
    id. Moreover, a
    direct appeal does not lie
    from the denial of a motion to modify a sentence filed outside the statutory time
    period unless the motion raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void.
    
    Frazier, 302 Ga. App. at 348
    .
    Given that Moore’s April 2017 motion sought to amend a motion that no longer
    remained pending, it was, in essence, a new motion for a sentence modification. See
    Planet Ins. Co. v. Ferrell, 
    228 Ga. App. 264
    , 266 (491 SE2d 471) (1997)
    (“[P]leadings, motions and orders are to be construed according to their substance and
    function and not merely as to their nomenclature . . . .”). In his April 2017 motion,
    Moore contended that: (i) the facts surrounding the offenses of which he was
    convicted, his co-defendants’ sentences, his prior history, and his conduct while
    incarcerated each warranted a lower sentence; (ii) the trial court misinformed Moore
    of his right to seek a sentence reduction from the Sentence Review Panel; and (iii) the
    trial court failed to charge the jury on lesser-included offenses. Moore did not,
    however, raise a colorable claim that his sentences are void because they exceed the
    statutory maximums. See 
    Jones, 278 Ga. at 670
    ; 
    Frazier, 302 Ga. App. at 348
    .
    To the extent that Moore’s motion could be construed as seeking to vacate or
    modify his convictions, “a petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is
    not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case,” Harper v. State, 
    286 Ga. 216
    , 218 (1)
    (686 SE2d 786) (2009), and any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a
    motion must be dismissed, see 
    id. at 218
    (2); see also Roberts v. State, 
    286 Ga. 532
    ,
    532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for
    lack of jurisdiction. See 
    Frazier, 302 Ga. App. at 348
    -349.
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    09/06/2017
    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: A18A0140

Filed Date: 9/15/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2017