# 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 A1 42 6 . STANFORD KI NG v . THE STATE.

I n 2007 , af

ter Stanf o rd K ing w as c o nv ic ted o f tw o c o u nts of aggrav ated assau lt

w ith intent to c o mmit ro bbery, he w as sentenc ed to tw enty years, w ith the f irst sev en

years in c o nf

inement and the balanc e o n p ro batio n. I n 201 8, af ter he w as c o nv ic ted o f

p o ssessio n o f c o c aine w ith intent to d istribu te and p o s sessio n o f a f irearm by a

c o nv ic ted felo n, he was sentenc ed to f if teen ye a r s , w ith the first f ou r years in

c o nf inement and the balanc e o n p ro batio n. I n A u gu s t 2023, the trial c ou rt rev o k ed the

balanc e o f K ing’ s p ro batio n in b o t h c ases. King t hereaf ter f iled a p ro s e mo tio n to

“ co rrec t a c leric al erro r,” argu ing t hat the u nd erlying ind ic t m ents w e re ac tu ally “ no
bills” b ec au se the trial c o urt c lerk had no minu tes f ro m the grand j u ry sho w ing that

it v oted t o ind ic t him. Giv en this d ef ic ienc y, King asserted that a ny ju d gments against

hi m w ere nu ll a nd v o id

. W hen no r esp onse w a s f iled
, K ing mo v ed f

o r d ef au lt j u d gment o n his mo tio n. The trial c o u rt d enied bo th mo tio ns o n M arc h 7 , 2024, and

K ing f iled a d irec t ap peal. A s exp lained belo w , this ap p eal mu st be d ismissed

. First, t o the extent that K ing c h a l l enges his p ro batio n rev o c a tio n, he w as

requ ired to f

ile an ap p lic a tio n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p e al to o btain rev iew in this Co u rt.

See OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) ( 5); To dd v

. S ta te , 2 3 6 G a

. A p p

. 7 57 , 7 58 (51 3 SE2d 287 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (ho ld ing that w here the u nd erlying su bj ec t matter is pro batio n r ev oc atio n, the

d isc r etio nary ap peal p ro c ed u re ap p lies); a c c o rd W hi te v

. S ta te , 233 Ga. A pp

. 87 3, 87 4 (505 SE2d 228) (1 9 9 8).

S e c o n d
, t o the extent K ing’ s mo tio n to c o rrec t a c leric al erro r s o ught to s e t
asid e o r v ac ate his c o nv ic tio ns, a p o st- c o nv ic tio n mo tio n c hallenging the v alid ity o f a May 14, 2024c o nv ic tio n and seek ing t o set asid e o r v ac ate the sa m e i s no t a v alid p ro ced u re in a

c riminal c ase. See Ro berts v. S ta te , 286 Ga. 532, 532 (6 90 SE2d 1 50) (201 0 ) ; Wi lli a ms

v

. S ta t e , 283 Ga. 9 4, 9 4 (6 56 SE2d 1 44) (2008). A d irec t ap p eal may lie f ro m the d enial

o f a m o t io n to co rrec t a v o id sentenc e if the d ef end ant raises a c o lo rable c laim that the

sentenc e is v o id

. See Bu rg v. S ta te , 29 7 Ga. A p p

. 1 1 8, 1 1 9 (6 7 6 SE2d 46 5) (2009 ). B u t

“ [ m]o tio ns to v ac ate a v o id sentenc e generally are limited to c laim s t h at

– ev en

assu ming t h e existenc e a nd v alid ity o f the c o nv ic tio n fo r whic h the sentenc e w as imp o sed

– t he law d oes no t au tho riz e that sentenc e, mo st typ ic ally bec a u se it exc eed s
the mo st sev e re p u nishment f or w hic h t he ap p lic able p ena l statu t e p ro v id es. ” v o n
Tho ma s v. S ta te , 29 3 Ga. 56 9, 57 2 (2) (7 48 SE2d 446 ) (201 3).

H er e , K ing’ s mo tio n d o e s no t a llege that his sentenc e e xc eed s the maximu m
allo w ed by law

. I nstead
, K ing alleges that any j u d gments against him are v o id bec au se
his ind ic tments w e re f

law ed

. A challenge to the v alid ity o f a n ind ic tment is a c hallenge

to t he c o nv ic tio n rather than the sentenc e. See Tho mps o n v

. S ta te , 304 Ga. 1 46 , 1 49 (3) (81 6 SE2d 6 46 ) (201 8); Jo n e s v

. S ta te , 29 0 G a. A p p

. 49 0, 49 4 (2) (6 59 SE2d 87 5) ( 2 008). The Su p reme Co urt has mad e c lear that a mo tio n seek ing to c hallenge an alleged ly inv alid o r vo id j u d gment o f c o nv ic t io n “ is n o t o ne of the e stablished

p ro c ed ures f

o r c hallenging the v alid ity o f a j ud gment in a c riminal c ase” and that an

ap p eal f ro m the d enial o f su c h a mo tio n is su bj ec t t o d ismissal. Ro b erts , 286 Ga. at 532;

Ha rper v

. S ta te , 286 Ga. 21 6, 21 8 (2) (6 86 SE2d 7 86 ) (2009 ).

Fo r thes e r e as o n s, we lac k j u risd ic t io n o v er this ap peal, w hic h 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 th e a b o v e is 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 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

. 05/14/2024