Court Opinion

ID: 9579035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:50:53.152062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:12.978471
License: Public Domain

Sognier, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the result reached by the majority, but cannot agree with the rationale advanced therein, as I find this case raises questions concerning the trial court’s authority to resentence a convicted defendant, not its power to modify a sentence.
As the majority recognizes, absent certain circumstances not present here, the trial court cannot modify a criminal sentence once the court term at which the sentence was rendered ends or the defendant begins serving the sentence. However, the trial court is authorized to resentence a defendant at any time if, inter alia, the original sentence was void or illegal (Sherman v. State, 142 Ga. App. 691, 692 (237 SE2d 5) (1977); Mullins v. State, 134 Ga. App. 243 (1) (214 SE2d 1) (1975)), the defendant is convicted on two indictments but the charges are indistinguishable (Roberts v. State, 174 Ga. App. 471 (330 SE2d 597) (1985)), or the conviction on one charge of a multi-count indictment is reversed and the sentences were rendered in the aggregate (Taylor v. State, 144 Ga. App. 534, 536 (241 SE2d 590) (1978); Crews v. State, 142 Ga. App. 319, 321-322 (8) (235 SE2d 756) (1977), overruled in part on other grounds, DeFrancis v. Manning, 246 Ga. 307 (271 SE2d 209) (1980)).
In the case at bar, after this court reversed appellant’s conviction on the RICO count but left the fraudulent insurance claim conviction intact, the trial court ordered appellant to appear for “resentencing” because his original sentence had taken into account his convictions for both crimes. This procedure was the proper approach under those circumstances. See Foster v. State, 142 Ga. App. 805-806 (2) (237 SE2d 455) (1977); see generally Taylor, supra at 536; Crews, supra at 322. However, the trial court was not authorized to increase the sentence originally given appellant for the fraudulent insurance claim conviction. See Schamber v. State, 152 Ga. App. 196, 198 (262 SE2d 533) (1979). While the original written sentence does not clearly indicate to which count the restitution, fine, and probation fee were attributable, the transcript of the first sentencing hearing clearly reveals that the restitution sum, fine, and probation fee were included in the sentence for the RICO conviction, and that the sentence for the fraudulent insurance claim was composed solely of a one-year probated sentence. Accordingly, upon resentencing after remittitur the trial court could levy no greater penalty than the one-year probationary period.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Carley joins in this *510special concurrence.
Decided May 3, 1990.
Gammon & Anderson, W. Wright Gammon, Jr., for appellant.
Stephen H. Lanier, District Attorney, Harold Chambers, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.