Reynolds v. State, 49264
| Decision Date | 12 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49264,No. 3,49264,3 |
| Parties | Robert W. REYNOLDS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
D. C. Campbell, Jr., Smith, Geer & Brimberry, Peter Zack Geer, Burt, Burt & Rentz, H. P. Burt, Albany, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, George J. Hearn, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Monroe, George Lawrence, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was convicted on 30 counts of an indictment. The jury sentenced him to one year on each count without stating that any sentence was to run consecutively. The trial judge, when entering judgment, imposed the following sentences on the respective counts: Count 1-one year with Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 to run concurrently with Count 1; Count 6-one year to run consecutively with Count 1; Counts 7, 8, 9 and 10-one year each to run concurrently with Count 6; Count 11-one year to run consecutively with Count 6; and Counts 12, 13, 14 and 15-one year each to run consecutively with Count 11; Count 16-one year to run consecutively with Count 11, and Counts 17, 18, 19 and 20-one year each to run concurrently with Count 16; Count 21-one year to run consecutively with Count 16, and Counts 22, 23, 24 and 25-one year each to run concurrently with Count 21; Count 26-one year to run consecutively with Count 21, and Counts 27, 28, 29 and 30-one year each to run concurrently with Count 26. This judgment was dated August 31, 1973. There was no appeal from this judgment. On December 12, 1973, the defendant made a motion to modify the judgments of sentence so as to provide that all one-year sentences run concurrently. This motion was based upon the case of Wade v. State, 231 Ga. 131, 200 S.E.2d 271, and Mathis v. State, 231 Ga. 401, 202 S.E.2d 73, decided November 9, 1973. The trial judge overruled the motion, taking the position that the term of court at which the judgments of sentence were rendered having expired, he had no power to amend, change or modify the judgments of sentence. See Code Ann. § 27-2502; Phillips v. State, 95 Ga.App. 277, 97 S.E.2d 707; Gobles v. Hayes, 194 Ga. 297(1), 21 S.E.2d 624; Auldridge v. Womble, 157 Ga. 64(3), 120 S.E. 620. The defendant appealed to this court. Held:
1. Both Wade and Mathis hold that under the circumstances of the present case, where the jury is by law required to fix the sentence and the jury does not provide that any of the sentences on any count shall run consecutively to others, the trial judge in imposing sentences must impose them so that they run concurrently, and has no power to make any of them run consecutively; and that if he does so, these sentences to run consecutively are not valid sentences, and therefore void. As was stated in the Wade case (231 Ga. p. 133, 200 S.E.2d p. 273): We accordingly hold that the trial court erred in refusing to entertain and pass upon the motion in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estes v. Chapman, 03-11550.
...sentence before the expiration of the sentencing court's term or within 60 days of the original sentencing. See Reynolds v. State, 132 Ga.App. 89, 91, 207 S.E.2d 630, 632 (1974); Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611, 409 S.E.2d 517, 518 (1991). However, "[w]here a sentence is void ... the co......
-
Pruitt v. State
...where the original sentence was illegal, at any time. (Cits.)' Mullins v. State, 134 Ga.App. 243, 214 S.E.2d 1. See Reynolds v. State, 132 Ga.App. 89, 207 S.E.2d 630; Elrod v. Caldwell, 232 Ga. 876, 209 S.E.2d 207. Treating the motion as one to enter a valid judgment of sentence, we examine......
-
Atkins v. State
...S.E.2d 240, Shockley v. State, 232 Ga. 154, 205 S.E.2d 246, Sinkfield v. State, 130 Ga.App. 389(4), 203 S.E.2d 708, and Reynolds v. State, 132 Ga.App. 89, 207 S.E.2d 630, the trial court is authorized, subsequent to trial, conviction, sentence and judgment, to empanel a new jury and submit ......
-
Anglin v. State
...He cites Wade v. State, 231 Ga. 131, 200 S.E.2d 271 (1973); Mathis v. State, 231 Ga. 401, 202 S.E.2d 73 (1973); and Reynolds v. State, 132 Ga.App. 89, 207 S.E.2d 630 (1974), contending that because the jury did not specify that his two life sentences were to be served consecutively, the tri......