Court Opinion

ID: 9583131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:35:05.032632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:51.575420
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring.
I concur fully in the judgment affirming in part and reversing in part, since the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the convictions, yet the trial court had no jurisdiction over the malice murder charge. I write separately to point out that, because of that absence of jurisdiction and our reversal of the void murder conviction, the State may now elect to indict and try Mayo for malice murder. See State v. Perkins, 276 Ga. 621, 623 (580 SE2d 523) (2003); Jackett v. State, 209 Ga. App. 112 (432 SE2d 586) (1993); Parker v. State, 170 Ga. App. 333-334 (1) (317 SE2d 209) (1984); OCGA § 16-1-8 (d) (1), (2). Indeed, Weatherbed v. State, 271 Ga. 736, 739 (524 SE2d 452) (1999) itself recognized that the State could still indict the defendant.