X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Rickman, Judge. Following this Court’s holding in Hood v. State, in which we held that James William Hood’s child molestation sentence was void, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied.[1] See Hood v. State, 343 Ga. App. 230, 234 (1) (807 SE2d 10) (2017). On appeal, Hood contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the following reasons, we reverse. In April 2011, Hood entered a negotiated guilty plea to statutory rape and child molestation. The trial court sentenced Hood to serve 20 years, 10 years incarceration with the remainder on probation for statutory rape and 15 years probation consecutive for child molestation. Approximately four and a half years later, Hood filed a motion to vacate his sentence, alleging that his child molestation sentence was void because it violated the split-sentence requirement of former OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (b).[2] The trial court denied Hood’s motion, and this Court vacated Hood’s child molestation sentence, finding that Hood’s child molestation sentence did not comply with the split sentence requirement of former OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (b). Hood, 343 Ga. App. at 234 (1). After this Court vacated Hood’s child molestation sentence, Hood filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he had a statutory right under former OCGA § 17-7-93 (b) to withdraw his guilty plea prior to being resentenced.[3] The trial court denied Hood’s motion, finding that Hood’s plea was freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered; the “negotiated plea between the State and Hood foster[ed] both the interests of the State of Georgia and of [Hood] by allowing both parties to avoid the uncertainty of a jury trial”; and thus, Hood waived his right to withdraw his guilty plea. Hood contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, he argues that he had a statutory right pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-93 to withdraw his guilty plea prior to being resentenced. We agree. “If the [defendant] pleads ‘guilty,’ . . . the court shall pronounce the judgment of the law upon the person in the same manner as if he or she had been convicted of the offense by the verdict of a jury. At any time before judgment is pronounced, the accused person may withdraw the plea of “guilty” and plead “not guilty.” OCGA § 17-7-93 (b). Under Georgia law, [a]s a rule, a defendant has an absolute right to withdraw his plea before sentence is pronounced. Since a void sentence is the same as no sentence at all, the defendant stands in the position as if he had pled guilty and not been sentenced, and so may withdraw his guilty plea as of right before resentencing, even following the expiration of the term of court in which the void sentence was pronounced. If [Hood's] sentence was void, therefore, he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Franks v. State, 323 Ga. App. 813, 813-814 (748 SE2d 291) (2013). “Because the court imposed [a] void sentence[], [Hood] stood in the position as if he had pled guilty but not yet been sentenced, and thus had the absolute right to withdraw his plea before resentencing.” Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of Hood’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to child molestation prior to resentencing was erroneous. See Royals v. State, 327 Ga. App. 337, 339 (2) (761 SE2d 357) (2014); Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814. Judgment reversed. Miller, P. J., and Reese, J., concur.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
June 20, 2024
Atlanta, GA

The Daily Report is honoring those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.


Learn More
April 29, 2024 - May 01, 2024
Aurora, CO

The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.


Learn More
May 15, 2024
Philadelphia, PA

The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.


Learn More

Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...


Apply Now ›

Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...


Apply Now ›

Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...


Apply Now ›
04/15/2024
Connecticut Law Tribune

MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS


View Announcement ›
04/11/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
04/08/2024
Daily Report

Daily Report 1/2 Page Professional Announcement 60 Days


View Announcement ›