Court Opinion

ID: 9587083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:55.589071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:01.370663
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
dissenting.
Shaheed entered a guilty plea to felony murder, and his primary contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his subsequent motion to withdraw that plea. However, the majority opinion does not purport to address that issue. Indeed, the Court cannot reverse on that basis, because there is no merit in the attack on the validity of the guilty plea. Instead, the majority simply holds that the trial court’s imposition of a “harsher sentence” in Shaheed’s absence was erroneous. Thus, the Court presumably reverses Appellant’s life sentence and remands for the trial court to resentence him. I cannot agree because, unless and until the underlying guilty plea is withdrawn, life imprisonment is the only sentence that can lawfully be imposed in this case.
In cases where the law provides for only one possible legal punishment, the act of resentencing the defendant involves a ministerial fimction which can be performed in his absence. See Sullivan v. State, 229 Ga. 731, 732 (194 SE2d 410) (1972) (defendants under unlawful death sentence resentenced to lawful sentence of life imprisonment). Compare Williams v. Ricketts, 234 Ga. 716 (217 SE2d 292) (1975) (defendant entitled to be present at resentencing where possible sentence for motor vehicle theft varied from three to seven years). Because the State did not seek the death penalty, the only legal sentence for felony murder in this case was life imprisonment. OCGA § 16-5-1 (d). Today’s opinion leaves Appellant’s guilty plea and, consequently, his conviction for that crime extant. When the trial court subsequently correctly removed from the sentence the unauthorized first offender status, it then simply entered the only possible lawful sentence. On the remand ordered by the majority, that exact same sentence will be the only authorized disposition of the case. Accordingly, the anomalous result of today’s decision is the vacation of the life sentence in order that the trial court can resen-tence Appellant to life imprisonment. Because nothing is accomplished by that except unnecessary delay, I dissent.