Court Opinion

ID: 9848557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:22:17.246665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:23.736926
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority decision which affirms the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to vacate his convictions because I *164believe appellant’s motion was unauthorized. I cannot agree, however, with the conclusion of the majority that a criminal defendant may challenge his conviction by filing a motion to vacate and thereby obtain a right of direct appeal in this Court. Accordingly, I specially concur.
Decided July 11, 2008.
Anthony Chester, pro se.
For more than a century this Court has followed the well-established legal rule that a motion to set aside or vacate a verdict is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case. See Williams v. State, 283 Ga. 94 (656 SE2d 144) (2008); Wright v. State, 277 Ga. 810, 811 (596 SE2d 587) (2004); Shields v. State, 276 Ga. 669, 671 (581 SE2d 536) (2003); Lacey v. State, 253 Ga. 711 (324 SE2d 471) (1985); Crane v. State, 249 Ga. 501 (292 SE2d 67) (1982); Waye v. State, 239 Ga. 871, 874 (238 SE2d 923) (1977); Waits v. State, 204 Ga. 295 (10) (49 SE2d 492) (1948); Claughton v. State, 179 Ga. 157 (1) (175 SE 470) (1934); Gravitt v. State, 165 Ga. 779 (3) (142 SE 100) (1928); Hughes v. State, 159 Ga. 818 (5) (127 SE 109) (1925); McDonald v. State, 126 Ga. 536 (55 SE 235) (1906). Without any justification, the majority opinion tacitly overrules this precedent by holding that OCGA § 17-9-4 provides criminal defendants authority to challenge their convictions at any time by filing in the trial courts of this State a motion to vacate or any other motion alleging their conviction is void.
I find nothing in the language of OCGA § 17-9-4 authorizing a criminal defendant to challenge a conviction by filing a motion to vacate or establishing a separate “§ 17-9-4 motion” by which criminal defendants may raise such a challenge. Instead, I believe OCGA § 17-9-4 as properly interpreted is a statute providing a criminal defendant the right to challenge a void conviction. Consistent with this interpretation, until today our cases have held that the proper remedy for challenging a void criminal conviction was by filing an extraordinary motion for new trial, OCGA § 5-5-41, a motion in arrest of judgment, OCGA § 17-9-61, or a petition for habeas corpus. OCGA § 9-14-40. See Williams, supra, 283 Ga. at 95, n. 1. See generally OCGA § 9-2-3 (“For every right there shall be a remedy.”). Unlike the majority opinion, I would follow this precedent and refuse to read into the right provided in OCGA § 17-9-4 a previously unrecognized remedy.
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley and Justice Hines join in this special concurrence.
*165Stephen D. Kelley, District Attorney, for appellee.