Carnel Lavan Bryant v. State, A17D0566

Background

Carnel Lavan Bryant was convicted of armed robbery and other crimes; his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in Bryant v. State.
Years later Bryant filed a “Motion to Correct Null and Void/Illegal Sentence Under Newly Discover[ed] Evidence,” alleging he was denied the right to counsel at pretrial showup identifications.
The trial court denied the motion; Bryant sought discretionary review in the Georgia Supreme Court, which transferred the application to the Court of Appeals.
Georgia law permits appeals from denials of motions to correct void sentences only when the sentence itself is arguably void or illegal (e.g., exceeds statutory limits); challenges to the validity of a conviction are not proper in such motions.
The Court of Appeals concluded Bryant’s claim attacked his conviction (not that his sentence exceeded legal bounds), and therefore a motion to vacate or modify the judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case.
The court also noted Bryant had no right to counsel at the showups because they occurred within about an hour of the crimes (pre-indictment), and the showups were previously held non-suggestive on direct appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appeal lies from denial of a motion to correct a void/illegal sentence when the claim challenges pretrial identification procedures	Bryant argued his sentence is void because he was denied counsel at pretrial showups, so relief via a motion to correct sentence is proper	State argued the claim attacks the conviction itself, not the sentence, so the motion to correct sentence is not the proper vehicle	Denied: appeal dismissed because the motion challenged the conviction, not the sentence; such claims are not cognizable in a motion to correct sentence
Whether a sentence is void if the defendant claims constitutional defects in identification	Bryant contended the identification defect rendered the sentence invalid	State relied on principle that a sentence is void only if it exceeds statutory authority; identification challenges affect conviction validity, not the statutory legality of the sentence	Held for State: sentences within statutory range are not void for defects in conviction process
Whether Bryant had a right to counsel at pre-indictment showups	Bryant asserted he was denied counsel during showups, implicating due process	State pointed to precedent that no right to counsel attaches before formal adversary proceedings have commenced	Held for State: no right to counsel at showups occurring within about an hour of the crime (pre-indictment)
Whether the showup identifications were impermissibly suggestive	Bryant argued the showups were suggestive and risked misidentification	State noted on direct appeal the showups were held not impermissibly suggestive and no substantial likelihood of misidentification	Held for State: prior appellate ruling found showups not impermissibly suggestive; no relief granted

Key Cases Cited

Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216 (motion to correct void sentence limited to claims that sentence is not authorized by law)
von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569 (motions to vacate void sentence address sentences exceeding statutory authorization)
Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (a sentence within statutory range is not void)
Bryant v. State, 304 Ga. App. 755 (direct appeal holding showups not impermissibly suggestive)
Allen v. State, 203 Ga. App. 851 (no right to counsel at showups occurring before formal adversary proceedings)
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at pre-indictment identifications)
Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (motions improperly challenging convictions must be dismissed)