THI RD DI VI SI ON

GOBEI L,

COOM ER and HODGES, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 11, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A1 64 4 . DEEDS v . THE STATE.

C O O M E R , J u d ge.

Ro y h em Deed s ap p eal s fro m t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt o f Tel fai r Co u n t y ’ s d i s m i s s al

o f h i s m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw a g u i l t y p l ea. Fo r t h e fo l l o wi n g reas on s

, we affi rm

.

Deed s was i n d i ct ed on fo u r co u n t s o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t

, o n e co u n t o f cri m i n al

at t em p t to co m m i t a fel o ny (m

u rd er), an d t wo co u n t s o f cru el t y t o ch i ld ren i n t h e fi rs t

d eg ree o n No v em

b er 2

, 2 0 1 5

. On Ap ri l 4

, 2 0 1 6

, Deed s p l ead ed g u i l t y p u rs u an t to

No r t h Ca r o l i n a v. Al

f or d

, 4 00 U. S. 2 5 (9 1 SCt 1 6 0

, 2 7 LE2 d 1 6 2 ) (1 9 7 0 ) t o o n e

co u nt o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t

. Aft er a h eari n g t h e s am e d ay

, t h e t ri al co u rt fi ned Deed s

$ 1 ,0 0 0 an d p l ace d h i m o n p ro b at i o n fo r fi v e y ears

, wi t h h i s p ro bat i o n t erm i n at i n g

aft er t wo y ears o f co m

p l i an ce. Deed s was s en t en ced as a fi rs t o ffen d er. On Feb ru ary

2 3

, 2 0 1 7

, Deed s fi l ed a m o t i o n to wi t h d raw h i s g u i l t y p l ea. H e s u b s eq u en t l y am en d edh i s m o t i o n o n Feb ru ary 21

, 20 1 8

, an d Feb ru ary 2 6

, 2 0 18

. On M arch 8

, 20 1 8

, t h e t ri al

co u rt d i s m is s ed Deed s ’ s m o ti o n

, h o l di n g t h at i t l ack ed ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n si d er t h e

m o ti o n b ecau s e i t was fi l ed aft er t h e ex p i rat i o n o f t h e t erm o f co u rt i n w h i ch Deed s

was s en t en ced an d was t h erefo re u n t im el y . Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

Ou r rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en ial o f D eed s ’ s m o t i on t o wi t h d raw h i s g ui l t y

p l ea i s d e n o v o an d i nv ol v es ap p l i cat i o n of t he l aw t o u n di s p u t ed fact s

. S ee S i mmo n s

v. S t a t e , 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p . 8 2

, 8 3 (2 ) (7 2 6 SE2 d 5 7 3 ) (2 0 1 2).

In h is s o l e en u m er a t i o n o f erro r, Deed s co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in

d i s m i s s i n g h is m o ti o n to wi t h d raw hi s g u i l t y p l ea o n t h e g ro u n d s t h at t he m o t i o n was

o u t -o f-t erm

an d t h at t h e co u rt t h erefo re l ack ed ju ri s di ct io n . W e d i s ag ree.

Th e un d i s pu t ed fact s s h ow th at Deed s fi led h i s m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw h i s g ui l t y

p l ea i n Feb ru ary o f 2 01 7 p u rs u an t t o Un i fo rm Su peri o r Co u rt Ru l e 3 3 .1 2

, wh i ch

p ro v id es

, i n rel ev an t p art : “ [a] ft er s en t en ce i s p ro n o un ced

, t h e ju d g e s h o u l d al l o w t h e

d efen d an t t o wi t h d raw a p l ea o f g u il t y or n o l o co n t en d ere w h en ev er t h e d efen d an t

,

u p o n a t im el y m o t i on fo r wi t h d rawal

, p ro v es t h at wi t h d rawal i s n eces s ary to co rrect

a m an i fes t i n

ju s t i ce.” Geo rg ia l aw

i s wel l s et t l ed t h at wh en t h e t erm o f co u rt h as ex p i re d i n wh i ch a

d efen d an t was s en t en ced p u rs u an t t o a g u il t y p l ea, t h e t ri al co u rt l ack s

2ju ri s di ct i o n to al l ow t h e wi t h d rawal o f t h e p l ea. On ce t h e t erm o f co u rt

i n wh i ch a d efen d an t was s en ten ced has ex p i r ed

, t h e o n l y av ai l ab l e

m ean s fo r an ap p el l an t t o w i t h d raw hi s g u i l t y p l ea i s t h ro u g h h ab eas

co rp us p ro ceed in gs

.

Du p r ee v. S t a t e

, 2 7 9 Ga. 6 1 3 , 6 1 4 (6 1 9 SE2 d 6 0 8 ) (2 0 05 ) (ci tat i o n o m i t t ed ).

Deed s d o es n o t d i s p u t e t h at h e fi l ed t he m o t i o n t o wi th d raw hi s g u il t y pl ea o u t

o f-t erm

. In s t ead

, D eed s co n t en d s th at t ri al co u rt s ret ai n ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er o u t

o f-t erm m o t i o n s fo r d i s cret i on ary wi t h d rawal o f fi rs t o ffen d er g ui l t y pl eas

. In s u p p o rt

o f h i s co nt en t i on

, Deed s re l i e s h e a v i l y o n Tr i p p v. S t a te

, 2 2 3 G a. Ap p. 7 3, 7 3 (4 7 6

SE2 d 8 4 4) (1 9 9 6) (p hy s i cal p reced en t o n l y ), i n wh i ch we h el d t h at a t ri al co u rt h ad

ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er a d efen d an t ’ s m ot i o n t o wi t h d raw h i s fi rs t o ffen d er g u i l t y p l ea

u n d er Un i fo rm Su p eri or Co u rt Ru le 3 3 .9 ev en t h o u g h m o r e t h a n o n e t erm o f co u rt

h ad ex p i red b et w een t h e t i m e t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered t h e d efen d an t ’ s g u i l t y p l ea an d

s en t en ce an d t h e t i m e t h e d efen d an t fi l ed hi s m o t i o n t o w i t hd raw. Ho wev er, Tr i p p i s

n o t b i n d in g au t h o ri t y

. S

ee Si mmo n s

, 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 5 ( 2 )

, n

. 2 1 (“ To t h e ex t en t

Tr i p p [ ] s u g g es t s t hat th e t ri al co urt ret ai n s ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er a m o t i o n to

wi t h d raw g u i l t y p l ea u nt i l t h e ex p i rat i o n o f t h e t erm of co urt i n w hi ch an ad ju d i cat i o n

o f g u il t i s en t ered

. . . , Tr i p p i s . . . n o t b i n d i n g au t h o ri t y

. ” (ci tat i o n s o m it t ed ))

.

3Rel y i n g o n Tr i p p

, Deed s ar g u es th at b ecau s e Geo rg i a’ s Fi rs t O ffen d er Act

p erm i t s ad

ju di cat i o n an d re-s en t en ci n g b ey o n d t h e t erm i n wh ich t he p l ea i s en t ered

,

t h e s en t en ci n g co urt al s o ret ai n s ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er a m o ti o n t o wi t h d raw a p l ea

t o rem ed y a m an i fes t in

j u s t i ce. Fo rm er OCGA § 4 2-8 -6 0 (b ), ap p li cab le at t h e t i m e

o f Deed s ’ s p l ea, p ro v i d ed , i n rel ev an t p art :

Up o n vi o l at io n b y t he d efen d an t o f t h e t erm s o f p ro b at i o n

, u p o n a

co n v i ct i o n fo r an ot her cri m e d u ri ng t h e p eri od o f p ro b at i o n, o r u p on th e

co u rt d et erm in in g t h at t h e d efen d an t i s o r was n o t el ig i b le fo r s en t en ci n g

u n d er t hi s art i cl e, t h e co u rt m ay en t er an ad ju d i cat i o n o f g u i l t an d

p ro ceed as o t h erwi s e p ro v i d ed b y l aw.

A t ri al co u rt ’ s ab i l it y t o m o di fy a d efen d an t ’ s s en t en ce u n d er t h i s C o d e s e ct i o n i s

l i m i ted

. Th e t ri al co u rt m ay o n l y en t er an ad ju d i cat i o n o f g u i l t a n d re-s en t en ce a

d efen d an t i f t h ere i s a “ v i ol at i o n b y t h e d efen d an t o f t h e t erm s of pro b at i o n ” o r

“ co n v i ct i o n fo r an o th er cri m e d uri n g t h e peri o d of p ro b at i o n ” o r “ t he c o u rt

d et erm i n [es ] t h at t h e d efen d an t i s o r was n o t e li gi b l e” fo r fi rs t o ffen d er t reat m en t

.

Fo rm er OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 0 (b ). Th e Fi rs t Offen d er Act do es n ot ex p res sl y m o d i fy t h e

wel l -es tab l i s h ed ru le t h at a t ri al co u rt l ack s ju ri s di ct i o n t o al l o w t h e wi t h d rawal o f a

g u i l t y pl ea wh en t h e term of co u rt h as ex pi red i n wh ich t h e d efen d an t w as s en t en ced

p u rs u an t t o t h e g u i l t y p l ea. A l t ho u g h t h i s ru l e d ep ri v es t h e tri al co urt o f j u ri s d i ct i o n

4t o al l o w a d efen d an t t o wi t h d raw h i s p l ea u p o n ex p irat i o n o f t h e term o f c o u rt in

wh i ch s en t en ci n g occu rred

, i t d oes no t d ep ri v e a d efen d an t o f th e o pp o rt un i t y t o s eek

red res s o f a m an i fes t i n

ju s t i ce t h ro u g h a h ab eas p et i ti o n

. In t h e ab s en ce o f an ex p res s

s t at u to ry m o d i fi cat io n of t h e g en eral ru l e, we co ncl u d e t h at t r i a l c o u rt l ack ed

j u ri s d ict i o n to co n s i d er Deed s ’ s m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw h i s fi rs t o ffen d er g u i l t y p l ea

b ecau s e i t was n o t m ad e wi t h i n t h e t erm of co urt i n wh i ch h e was s en t en ced

. Deed s

h as n ot b een d en i ed an y ri g h t s u n d er Geo rg i a o r fed eral l aw res u l t i n g fro m t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d i s m i s sal o f h i s m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw h i s g ui l ty p l ea. Deed s ’ s g u i lt y pl ea m ay

o n l y b e w i th d rawn i n a h ab eas co rp u s p ro ceed in g

. S ee Du p r ee v. S t a t e

, 2 7 9 Ga. 6 1 4;

S i mmo n s

, 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 4 (2 ). Th erefo re, t he t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s m i ss al of Deed s ’ s

m o ti o n was ap pro pri at e.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Go b ei l

a n d Ho d g es , JJ., co n cu r

.

5