# 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 A0 68 1 . ARTHUR BUSSEY v . THE STATE. A2 4 A0 68 4 . ARTHUR BUSSEY v . THE STATE.

I n 201 5, A rthu r Shermaine B u ssey w as c harged w ith tw o c o u nts of aggrav ated

a s s au lt. Co u nt 1 alleged that B u ssey s tabbed the v ic tim in the c hest, and Co u n t 2 alleged that he stabbed the v ic t im in the b ac k

. B u ssey p led gu ilty to bo t h c o u nts and

rec eiv ed a to tal sentenc e o f 30 years, to serv e 20 in c o nf inement. I n 2020, B u ssey f iled

a “M o tio n to Challenge Co nstitu t io nality o f the I nd ic tment, ” a r g u i n g that the tw o

c o u nts sho u ld hav e merged

. The tr i a l c o u r t interp reted the mo tio n as o ne to v ac a t e

a vo id sentenc e and d enied it. B u ssey ap p ealed , a nd this Co u r t d ismissed the ap p eal.

See Case N o

. A 20A 1 9 7 8 ( d ismissed A u g. 24, 2 020). W e exp lained in o u r d ismissal

o rd er that Bu ssey’ s m e rger argu ment w as a c hallenge to a c o nv i c t i o n rather than a

sentenc e. Thu s , the argu ment d id no t c o nstitu t e a v alid v oid -sentenc e c laim, and the

ap p eal w as su bj ec t to d ismissal. See W i lli a ms v

. S ta t

e , 287 Ga. 1 9 2, 1 9 3- 1 9 4 ( 6 9 5 SE2d 244) (201 0); Fra z i

er v. S ta te , 302 Ga. A p p

. 346 , 348- 349 (6 9 1 SE2d 247 ) (201 0).

B ussey then f

iled in the t rial c o u rt the u nd erlying tw o mo tio ns, o ne s eek ing the

c riminal histo ries o f the State’ s w itnesses, and the sec ond seek ing to set asid e a v o id j u d gment, again argu ing that the c harges s ho uld hav e merged

. T h e tr i a l c o urt
d ismissed bo t h m o t io ns, no ting that the c riminal histo ries o f the State’ s w i t n e sses

w ere av ailable to Bu s sey thro u gh the statu to ry mec hanism o f OCGA § 35- 3- 34, and
f ind ing that B u ssey w as no t entitled to c hallenge the ju d gment o n the gro u nd that it

w as v o id . B u ssey no w ap p eals f ro m these tw o d ismissals. W e lac k j u risd ic tio n.
B ussey’ s merger argu ment is a c hallenge to a c o nv ic tio n rather than a sentenc e, January 18, 2024a n d thu s d o es no t c o nstitu t e a v alid v o id

- sentenc e claim. See W illi a ms , 287 Ga. a t

1 9 3- 19 4. M o reo v er, these a p p eals are barred bec au se the issu es he r aises hav e o r c o u ld
hav e been litigated in his p rio r ap p eal. See E cho ls v

. Sta te , 243 G a. A p p

. 7 7 5, 7 7 6 (534
SE2d 46 4) (2000) (“ It is a xio matic that the s a m e i ssu e c anno t be relitigated ad
inf initu m. The same is tru e o f ap p eals o f the same issu e o n the same g r o u nd s. ” ) (p u nc tu atio n o m i t ted ); Ja cks on v

. S ta te , 27 3 Ga. 320, 320 (540 SE2d 6 1 2) (2001 ) (a

p arty “is no t entitled to ano ther bite at the ap p le by w ay o f a s ec ond ap peal” ) ; D eKa lb

C o u n ty v

. Hea th , 331 Ga. A p p

. 1 7 9 , 1 81 (1 ) (7 7 0 SE2d 26 9 ) (201 5) (“ [T]he d oc trine o f

res j u d i c ata p rev ents the re- litigatio n o f a ll c laims whic h hav e alread y been
ad j u d ic ated , o r w hic h c o uld hav e been ad j ud ic ated , betw een id entic al p arties o r their

p riv ies in id entic al c a uses o f ac tio n. ” ) (p u nc tu atio n and emp hasis o mitted ).

A c c o rd ingly, these ap p eals are 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 i

s a t r 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 i g 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

. 01/18/2024