2 9 7 Ga . 3 49

F INAL COP Y

S 1 5 A0 5 8 8. HUMP HREY v . THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.
In Ju ly 19 9 8 , Ja m e l Hu m

p h re y n e g o tia te d a p le a a g re e m e n t w ith th e S ta te ,

e n te re d a p le a o f g u ilty b u t m e n ta lly ill, wa s c o n v ic te d o f m u rd e r u p o n his p le a ,

a n d wa s se n te n c e d to a te rm o f im p riso n m e n t fo r life with th e p ro v isio n th a t h e

wo u ld b e e lig ib le fo r p a ro le , b u t o n ly a fte r h e se rv e d 2 5 y e a rs o f h is se n te n c e

.
Alm o st six te e n y e a rs la te r, H u m p h re y file d a m o tio n to va c a te h is s e n te n c e ,

a lle g in g th a t th e se n te n c e is vo id b e c a u se m u rd e r is p u n ish a

b le o n ly b y d e a th ,
im p riso n m e n t fo r l i f

e w i th o u t a n y p o ssib ility o f p aro le e v e r, or im p riso n m e n t

fo r life with th e p ossib ility of p a ro le a t th e e a rlie st p o in t p e rm itte d b y la w, wh ic h

wo u ld h a v e b e e n, in Hu m p h re y ’s c a se , a fte r f

o u r t ee n y e a rs. 1 Th e tria l c o urt

d e n ie d h is m otio n, a n d Hu m p h re y a p p e al s

. F o r th e re a so n s th a t fo llo w, we

re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e tria l c o u rt a n d re m an d th e c a se with d ire c tio n

.

1 At the tim e Hum

phrey com m itted his crim e, and at the tim e he was sentenced, the law provided that a person serving a lif e sentence with the possibility of parole f or m urder would b e e ligible f

or parole only af

ter serving f

ourteen y ears. See Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, § 11 (f o rm er O C G A § 1 7 -10-6.1 (c) (1)). The law n ow provides t hat such a person generally is eligible f or parole af

ter serving 30 y ears. See OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (c) (1).To b e g in , w e a g re e with Hu m p h re y th a t th e la w on ly a

u th o riz e d th e tria l

c o u rt to se n te n c e h im to d e a th , im p riso n m e n t fo r life with o u t a n y p o ssib ility o f

p a ro le e v e r , o r i m

priso n m e n t fo r life w ith th e p o ssib ility o f p a ro le a s so o n a s

p e rm itte d b y la w. S e e OCG A § 1 6 -5 -1 (e ) (1 ). Th e a p p lic a b le la w o ffe re d th e

tria l c o u rt n o o th e r se n te n c in g o p tio n s. It is tru e th a t Hu m p hre y c o n se n te d to h is

se n te nc e , in c lu d in g th e p ro v isio n th a t h e w o u ld b e in e lig ib le fo r pa ro le fo r th e

first 2 5 y e a rs o f th a t se n te n c e

. Bu t wh e n a c o u rt im p o se s a c rim in a l p u n ish m e n t

th a t th e la w d o e s n o t a llo w, th e se n te n c e is no t ju st a n e r r o r , i t i s v o id

. S e e

Cru m b le y v

. Sta te , 2 6 1 Ga

. 6 1 0 , 6 1 1 (1 ) (4 0 9 S E2 d 5 1 7 ) (1 9 9 1 ) (“ A se n te n c e

is vo id if th e c o u rt im

p o se s p u n ish m e n t th a t th e la w d o e s n o t a llo w.” (Cita tio n

o m itte d .)). An d a s we h a v e i n d ic a te d in a n u m b e r o f c a se s, th e c o n se n t o f th e

p a rtie s c a n n o t va lid a te a v o id se n te n c e

. Se e , e .g

. , Mo o re v

. S ta te , 29 3 Ga

. 7 0 5 ,
7 0 6 (1 ) (7 4 9 S E2 d 6 6 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ) ( “ [ A] de fe nd a n t wh o k n o win g ly e n te rs in to a

p le a a g re e m e n t a n d a c c e p ts t h e b e n e fit o f th a t b a rg a in do e s n o t w a iv e o r

‘b a rg a in a wa y ’ th e rig ht to c h a lle n g e a n ille g a l a n d v o id se n te n c e .” (Cita tio n s

o m itte d .)); Be ll v

. S ta te , 2 9 4 Ga

. 5 , 8 (2 ) (7 4 9 S E2 d 6 7 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ A d e fe n d a n t

wh o k n o w i n g ly e n te rs in to a p le a a g re e m e n t d o e s n o t wa iv e th e rig h t to

c h a lle ng e a n ille g a l a n d vo id se n te n c e .” (Cita tio n o m itte d .)); v o n Th o m a s v

.
2S ta te , 2 9 3 Ga

. 5 6 9 , 5 7 3 (2 ) (7 4 8 S E2 d 4 4 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ [A] se n te n c e wh ic h is n o t

a llo w e d b y la w is v o id , a nd its ille g a lity m ay n o t b e wa iv e d .” (Cita tio n s,

p u n c tu a tio n a n d e m

p h a sis o m itte d .)); Na z a rio v

. S ta te , 29 3 G a

. 4 8 0 , 4 87 (2 ) (c )
(7 4 6 S E2 d 1 0 9 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ Vo id c o n v ic tio n s a n d ille ga l se n te n c e s h a v e n e v e r

b e e n su bje c t to g e n e ra l wa iv e r ru le s.” ).

Th e se p rin c ip le s se e m e sp e c ia lly so u n d wh e n a pp lie d to a s e n te n c e th a t

p u rp o rts to lim it e lig ib ility fo r p a ro le in a wa y th a t is n o t a u th o riz e d b y sta tu to ry

la w. By im

p o sin g su c h a se n te n c e , a c o u rt in tr u d e s u po n th e c o n stitu tio n a l

p re ro g a tiv e of th e Sta te Bo a rd o f P a rd on s a n d P a ro le s to e xte n d c le m e n c y t o

p e rso n s u n d e r se n te n c e

. Se e Ga

. Co nst

. o f 1 9 83 , Art. IV, S e c

. II, P a r. II (a )
(“ [ T]h e S t a t e Bo a rd o f P a rd on s a n d P a ro le s sh a ll b e ve ste d with th e p o we r o f

e x e c u tiv e c le m e n c y , in c lu d in g th e p o we rs to g ra n t re p rie ve s, p a rd o n s, a n d

p a ro le s

. . . . ” ). A lth o u g h th e Co n stitu tio n p e rm its th e G e n e r a l A sse m b ly b y

sta tu te to lim it th is pre ro g a tiv e in c e rta in re sp e c ts, se e Ga

. Co n st. o f 1 9 8 3 , Art.

IV, S e c

. II, Pa r. II (b ), (c ), th e Co n stitu tio n g iv e s th e c o u rts n o su c h a u th o rity

.
F o r th a t re a so n , a ju d ic ia l in c u rsio n u p on th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p re ro g a tiv e o f th e

Bo a rd “ v io la te s th e c o n stitu t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e s e p a ra tio n of po we rs.”

Te rry v

. H a m

ric k , 2 8 4 Ga

. 2 4 , 2 5 (2 ) (6 6 3 S E2 d 2 5 6 ) (2 0 0 8 ). An d w h a te v e r th e

3p ro se c u tin g a tto rn e y s a n d de fe n d a nt in a c r i mi n a l c a se m ig h t a g re e to , th e y

c a n n o t sim

p ly b y a g re e m e n t c o n fe r u p o n th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h a n

e x tra c o n stitu tio n a l p owe r to lim it th e c o n stitu tio n a l p re r o g a t iv e s o f a n o th e r

b ra n c h o f th e g o v e rn m e nt. S e e P e re z v

. S ta te , 2 54 Ga . Ap p . 8 7 2 , 8 7 3 (1 ) (5 6 4

S E2 d 2 0 8 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ Th e a u th o rity to g ra n t p a ro le o r o th e r re lie f fro m th e

se n te nc e im

p o s e d b y th e tria l c o u rt re sts with th e S ta te Bo a rd o f P a rd o n s &

P a ro le s, n o t th e d istric t a tto rn e y ’s o ffic e .” (Cita tio n om itte d .)). To th e e x te n t th a t

w e h e ld o th e rwise in Ba k e r v

. Sta te , 2 8 4 Ga

. 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 (2 ) (6 6 3 S E 2 d 2 6 1 )
(2 0 0 8 ), we o v e rru le th a t d e c isio n

.
Th e se n te n c e th a t th e tria l c o u rt im p o se d in th is c a se is v o id to th e e x te n t

th a t it p u rp o rts to lim it th e p owe r o f th e Bo a rd to p a ro le Hu m p h re y a s so o n a s

th e sta tu to ry la w p e rm its. T h a t p ro visio n o f th e se n te n c e — b u t o n ly th a t

p ro v isio n

— m

ust b e v a c a te d

. S e e Be ll, 2 9 4 Ga

. a t 8 (2 ) (“ Wh e n a d e fe n d a n t is

se n te nc e d in a m

u rd e r c a se to life im

p riso n m e n t p lu s p ro b a tio n, o nly th e p o rtio n

o f th e se n te n c e im

po sin g p ro b a tio n is in v a lid .” (Cit a tio n o m itte d .)).

Ac c o rd in g ly , we re v e rse th e d e n ia l of th e m o tio n to v a c a te th e se n te n c e , a n d we

re m a n d fo r th e tria l c o u r t t o va c a te th e p ro v isio n o f th e se n te n c e th a t pu rp o rts

4to lim it Hu m

p h re y ’s e lig ib ility fo r p a ro le

. 2 Se e Te rry , 28 4 Ga

. a t 2 5 (2 ); Bro wn

v . S ta te , 2 4 6 Ga

. 2 5 1, 2 5 3 (5 ) (2 71 S E2 d 1 6 3) (1 9 8 0 ).

Ju d g m e n t re v e rse d a n d c a se re m a n d e d with d ire c tio n

. All th e Ju stic e s

c o n c u r.

2 In his plea a greem e nt, Hum phrey not only consented to the im p osition of a sentence that purports to lim i t the power of the B oard to parole him , he also prom i sed that he would not seek parole f

or 25 y ears. No one should m isunderstand our decision as holding that his prom ise not to seek parole is unenf orceable. W hen a def

endant prom ises the State that he will not ask f or parole, his prom i se is a personal one. It does not require a court to do any thing, and it does not p urport to lim it t he constitutional p ower of the B oard. If H u mp h r ey breaks his prom ise and applies t o the Board f or parole bef

ore he has s e rved 25 y ears, the S tate m ay ask the Board i tself or a court to e nf orce the prom ise. W e express no opinion today about the availability

of a rem edy

f or the State, but our decision does not f oreclose the possibility

of such a rem edy

. 5De c id e d Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 5

.

Mu rd e r. Cla rk e S u p e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d g e S te p h e n s.

Ja m e l Hu m

p h re y , p ro se

.
Ke n n e th W. M a

u ld i n, Distric t Atto rn e y ; S a m u e l S

. Ole n s, Atto rn e y ,
P a tric ia B. Atta wa y Bu rto n , De p u tyAtto rn e y Ge n e ra l, P a u la K. S m ith , S e n io r

Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, fo r a p p e lle e

.

6