Court Opinion

ID: 9625222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:32:19.042039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:38.322467
License: Public Domain

*437Shulman, Judge,
dissenting.
Under the facts of this case, I must dissent.
1. Code Ann. § 6-1001a, enumerating those specific situations wherein the state may appeal, does not allow for appeal from an order denying the state’s motion to amend sentence. Potts v. State, 236 Ga. 230 (223 SE2d 120), cited by the majority, is simply not applicable to this case. Potts holds, apparently under the authority of Code Ann. § 6-1001a (c), that the state may appeal a void judgment surrendering jurisdiction of a criminal proceeding. Potts can be good law only insofar as it holds that a void judgment which has the effect of barring a criminal proceeding is subject to appeal by the state when the issue has not been joined and the defendant has not been put in jeopardy. Any other interpretation makes Potts an exercise in judicial legislation, extending the state’s right to appeal in criminal cases well beyond the very limited right granted by the General Assembly in § 6-1001a. I do not believe such an inappropriate result was intended by the Supreme Court.
Here, the defendant pleaded guilty, the trial court accepted that plea and sentenced the defendant. The issue had been joined and jeopardy had attached. See Potts, supra, (intimating that under these facts, City of Manchester v. Rowe, 60 Ga. App. 567 (3) (4 SE2d 477) and State v. B’Gos, 175 Ga. 627 (165 SE 566) would control). Code Ann. § 6-1001a does not authorize an appeal under these facts, and therefore does not confer the necessary jurisdiction for appellate review. See, e.g., State v. Hollomon, 132 Ga. App. 304 (208 SE2d 167).
2. In other courts, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the vacation of a judgment which unlawfully probates a mandatory sentence in a criminal case. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27; United States v. Norton, 539 F2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1976); see 73 ALR3d 474, § 2[b].
Arguably, mandamus would be the proper remedy here. Code Ann. § 64-101 provides that "[a]ll official duties should be faithfully performed; and whenever, from any cause, a defect of legal justice would ensue from a failure or improper performance, the writ of mandamus may issue to compel a due performance, if there shall be no *438other specific legal remedy for the legal rights.” The Code section by its plain terms suggests that the necessary machinery exists to rectify the situation confronting this court. But see Code Ann. §§ 24-4012, 2-3108.
If I were deciding this case in a vacuum, I would so hold. The law is to the contrary, however. Mandamus will not lie when the judge ". . . refuse[s] to punish persons convicted of crime. . .” Shreve v. Pendleton, 129 Ga. 374, 377 (58 SE 880) (Appellate court has no original jurisdiction to issue mandamus and writ of error complaining of legislative function not subject to review. Since a superior court cannot issue mandamus to another judge of superior court to compel the performance of an official act, no judicial remedy exists). See also Marlowe v. Worrill, 183 Ga. 275 (188 SE 340).
3. While I would prefer that this court act so as to fashion a remedy and to resolve the issue presented in a dispositive manner, the legal apparatus does not exist for us to do so. This court is without a jurisdictional basis to entertain this matter and is, therefore, powerless to act under the circumstances.
The resolution of this issue addresses itself to the legislature and not the courts. I would refrain from " 'taking that journey . . . "beyond the limits of judicial restraint and into the area of judicial legislation.” ’ [Cit.]” State of Ga. v. Meredith Chevrolet, Inc., 145 Ga. App. 8.
I therefore respectfully dissent.