# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 D0 22 3

. JAI RUS B. M OORE v

. DEKALB SUPERI OR COURT J UDGES, et

a l

.

Fo llo w ing a 1 9 98 j u ry trial, J airu s B

. M o o re w as c o nv ic t e d of rap e, aggrav ated

so d o m y, and o ther crimes, a nd w as sentenc ed t o lif e p lu s 30 years in inc arc eratio n.

On ap p eal, this Co u rt af

f irmed M o o r e’ s c o nv ic t io ns and sentenc e. Mo o re v. S ta te , 246

Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 3 (539 SE2d 851 ) ( 2000). I n 2007
, the trial c o u rt d enied M oo re’ s mo tio n

t o c o rrec t his sentenc e, rej ec ting his c laim that the sentenc e w as v o id

. T hi s C o u r t

su bsequ ently d ismissed a s u n t i m e ly M o o re’ s ap p lic atio n seek ing a d isc retio nary

ap p eal f r o m that o rd er. Mo o re v

. S ta te , Case N o

. A 08D 006 3 (Oc t. 23, 2007 ). Ov er a

d ec ad e later, M o o r e so u g h t t o f ile a p etitio n f

o r a writ o f mand amu s to c o mp el the

State B o ard of Pard o ns and Paro les to c o nsid er him f o r p aro le. The trial c o u rt d enied

that f iling, and this Co u rt d ismissed M o ore’ s d irec t ap p eal o f the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er

based on his f

ailu r e to f ile a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal. Mo o re v. Bern a rd

, Case N o

. A 20A 1239 (Feb. 1 1 , 2020).

I n A p ril 2022, M o o re f

iled a mo tio n s eek ing to c larif y his sentenc e w ith resp ec t

to p aro le eligi b i lity. A p p ro ximately o ne year later, in M ay 2023, M o ore f iled a

“ Mo tio n to Co rrec t Vo id Sentenc e. ” A f t e r the t r ial c o urt f

a iled to tak e ac tio n o n

either mo tio n, M o o re so u ght t o f ile a mand amu s p etitio n to c o m p e l t h e D e K alb

Co u nty Su p e r i o r C o u rt to dec id e his p end ing mo tio ns. On D ec ember 20, 2023, the

Chief J u d ge o f t he D eK alb Co u nty Su p erio r Co u rt entered a n o rd er rec u s ing all j u d ges

o f that c o u rt f

r o m d ec id ing Mo o re’ s mand amu s p etitio n and r equ esting that a j u dge February 07, 2024f

ro m ano ther c ou r t be assigned to ru le o n that p e titio n. Tw o days later, o n Dec ember

22, 2023, t he D eK alb Co u nty Su p erio r Co u rt entered an o rd er denying M o o re’ s

mo tio n to c larif

y his sentenc e and d ismissing his mo tio n to co rrec t his alleged ly v o id

sentenc e. I n do ing s o , the t r ial c o u rt no ted

, inter alia, that the mo tio ns w ere

d u p l i c ativ e o f p r io r mo tio ns, a ll o f w hic h the c o u rt had d enied ; that the s e n t e n c e

requ ired no c larif

ic atio n; and that M o o re’ s sentenc e w as no t vo id

. O n J a nu ary 4,

2 0 24, the j u dge ap p ointed t o d ec id e M o o re’ s mand amu s p etitio n entered a n o r d e r

ho ld ing t hat the relief M o o re so u ght w a s no w mo o t, as t he DeK a lb Co u nty Su p erio r

C o u r t h a d d ec id e d his p end ing m o t io ns. A c c o rd ingly, the j u d ge d ismissed the

mand a mu s p etitio n. M o o re then f ile d t h i s a p p l i ca t i o n f

o r d i s cr etio nary ap p eal, seek ing

rev iew o f the o r d er denying his mo tio n t o c larif y and d ismissing his mo tio n to c o rrec t

a vo id sentenc e, a s w ell as t he o rd er d ismissing his p etitio n f or mand a mu s. Fo r reaso ns

exp lained belo w , w e d ismiss the ap p lic atio n.

To the extent that M o o re is seek ing to c hallenge the d ismissal o f his mo tio n to

mo d if y his sentenc e, his ap p eal is barred a s a matter o f law

. Und er OCGA § 1 7

- 1 0- 1
(f ), a c o u r t may mo d if

y a sentenc e o nly du ring the year af t e r its imp o s itio n o r w ithin

1 20 days af

ter remittitu r f

o llo w ing a d irec t ap p e al, whic hev e r is later. Fra zi er v

. S ta te ,

302 Ga. A p p

. 346

, 348 (6 9 1 SE2d 247 ) ( 201 0). Onc e this statu to r y p erio d exp ires, as

it has here, a trial c o u rt may mo d if y a sentenc e o nly if that sentenc e is v o id

— i. e, o nly

if it imp o ses a p unishment that the law d o e s no t allo w

. I d. See also Jo n es v

. S ta te , 27 8

Ga. 6 6 9, 6 7 0 (6 04 SE2d 483) (2004) (“ [w ]hen the sentenc e imp o sed falls w ithin the

statu to ry range o f p u nishment, the sentenc e is no t v o id and is no t su bj e c t t o

p o st- ap p eal mo d if

ic atio n” ). Thu s, a d e f

end an t m a y n o t ap p eal an ord er d enying a

mo tio n to amend o r mo d if y his s entenc e u nless he c an raise a c o lo rable c laim that the

sentenc e is, in fac t , v oid

. Jo n es , 27 8 Ga. at 6 6 9

. See also Bu rg v

. S ta t e , 29 7 Ga. A p p

.

1 1 8, 1 1 9 (6 7 6 SE2d 46 5) (2009 ). H e re, the rec o rd sho w s that the sentenc es imp o sed

o n M o o re w ere w ithin t he s tatu to ry range f o r t he c rimes o f w hic h he w as c o nv ic ted

.
A c c o rd ingly, Mo o r e i s n o t entitled to ap p eal the d enial o f his mo tio n seek ing

mo d if ic atio n o f his sentenc e.A d d itio nally, M o ore’ s a p p eal of the o rd er d isp o s ing o f his mo tio ns f o r

c larif ic atio n and mo d if

ic atio n o f his sentenc e are barred bec au se the issu e s raised by

tho se mo tio ns hav e o r c ou ld hav e been litigated in p rio r ap p eals. See E cho ls v

. S ta te ,

2 4 3 G a. A p p

. 7 7 5, 77 6 (534 SE2d 46 4) (2000) (“ It is axio matic that the same is s u e

c anno t be relitigated ad inf initu m. The same is tru e o f ap p eals o f the s ame issu e o n the

same gro u nd s. ” ) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); Ja cks on v

. S ta t e , 27 3 Ga. 320, 320 ( 5 40 SE2d

6 1 2) (2001 ) (a p arty “ is no t e n titled to ano t her bite at the ap p le b y way o f a sec o nd

ap p eal” ). See a lso No rri

s v

. N orri s , 281 Ga. 56 6

, 5 6 7

- 5 68 (2) (6 42 SE2d 34) (2007 )

(the d ismissal o f

an ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary a pp eal ac ts as res j u d ic a ta as to the

issu es raised in the ap p lic a tio n); Ro s s v

. S t a te , 31 0 Ga. A p p

. 326

, 327 (7 1 3 SE2d 438)

(201 1 ) (d ismissal o f p rev io u s ap p eal c o nstitu tes t he bind ing law of the c ase, ev en

tho u gh the ap p eals c o u rt d id no t reac h the merits o f the c laim in the p rio r c ase).

Finally, t he f

ac t that the DeK alb Co unty Su p erio r Co u rt has ru led o n M o o re’ s

p end ing mo tio ns rend ers mo o t t he relief he so u ght v ia his p etitio n f o r mand amu s. See

Ri cha rds v

. W

ells Fa rgo Ba n k, N. A

. , 3 2 5 G a. A p p

. 722, 7 26 (5) (b) (7 54 SE2d 7 7 0)

(201 4) (f or ap p ellate p u r p o s e s , a mo tio n is mo o t if a r u ling w o u ld hav e no p rac tic al

ef f ec t on the c ase); OCGA § 5

- 6

- 48 (b) (3) (an ap pea l m ay b e d ismissed w hen the

qu estio ns p resented hav e bec o me mo o t).

B e c au se the issu e s M o o re seek s to raise are barred as a matter of law and /o r are

mo o t, this ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t

r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 02/07/2024