Court Opinion

ID: 9560089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:42:48.1373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.927276
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur fully in the majority opinion with regard to its affirmance of the jury verdict. However, I disagree with its holding insofar as it validates the sentencing phase of the proceedings below.
OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) provides that in imposing sentence, the trial court may consider the records of prior criminal convictions in aggravation of punishment, but only if “the state has made [such evidence] known to the defendant prior to his trial. . .” Because the State did not inform the appellant of its intention to use the prior convictions *856until the actual day of the sentencing, the evidence was inadmissible and improperly considered by the court below. Especially because one of the prior convictions was for rape, the defense counsel’s failure to object here simply was inexcusable, necessitating resentencing.
I agree with the majority that the purpose of OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) is to allow a defendant to examine his record in order to determine whether there are any defects which would render such documents inadmissible during the presentencing phase of the trial. Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141 (263 SE2d 666) (1980); Herring v. State, 238 Ga. 288 (232 SE2d 826) (1977). What puzzles me is how the majority concludes that this purpose has been accomplished in this case, where the prior convictions were first produced at the beginning of the sentencing hearing. The majority ignores one simple question: where or how has the defendant had the opportunity to determine any defects in the evidenced
In his special concurrence, Judge Pope disposes of this problem by finding a waiver in the appellant’s counsel’s failure to object at the presentencing hearing. Such a conclusion, however, assumes that the counsel was competent at that stage of the proceedings below. This, of course, is inconsistent with my opinion that the failure to object to the admission of at least the prior rape conviction proved the incompetency of the counsel at the presentencing phase, but waiver is the proper result if I am incorrect in considering the defense counsel ineffective. The majority, however, bases its holding on satisfaction of the notice function of OCGA § 17-10-2 (a).
Certainly consideration of the prior convictions at a second sentencing hearing would not be prohibited under OCGA § 17-10-2 (a), since that statute’s notice function has now been served. But I believe that another sentencing hearing is mandated so that the appellant is formally given the opportunity to attack the admissibility of the prior convictions. To hold otherwise virtually would license the State to “sandbag” any defendant at a sentencing hearing and render OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) nugatory.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s failure to remand this case for resentencing. I am authorized to state that Judge Sognier joins in this dissent.