Christopher A. Rice v. State, A17D0452

In 1994 Christopher A. Rice was convicted of burglary, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of kidnapping, and felony firearm possession; two life sentences were imposed for armed robbery.
In February 2017 Rice filed an "Extraordinary Motion for New Trial" alleging a defective indictment, improper jury instruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel aimed at contesting the life sentences.
The trial court denied Rice’s motion on April 28, 2017.
Rice filed two pro se discretionary applications to the Court of Appeals (A17D0439 and A17D0452) challenging the trial-court order; the Court consolidated the two dockets.
The Court of Appeals construed Rice’s pleading by its substance and concluded it was effectively a collateral attack on his conviction, not an extraordinary-motion basis or a proper void-sentence claim.
Because Rice did not assert that the sentences exceeded statutory authorization or otherwise were void, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the discretionary applications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rice’s "Extraordinary Motion for New Trial" was a proper vehicle to attack his convictions and sentences	Rice argued the indictment was defective, jury instruction was improper, and counsel ineffective to invalidate or alter his life sentences	State argued Rice’s motion, despite its caption, functioned as a collateral attack on his conviction and was not an authorized extraordinary-motion or void-sentence claim	Court held the motion was an unauthorized collateral attack; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was required
Whether the order denying the motion was subject to direct discretionary appeal as a void-sentence challenge	Rice contended his two life sentences could be challenged and thus permit discretionary review	State maintained Rice made no colorable claim that the sentences were outside statutory range and thus not void	Court held Rice made no void-sentence claim; sentences were within statutory range and the order was not directly appealable

State v. Hasson, 334 Ga. App. 1 (construing pleadings by function and substance)
Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (unauthorized motions to vacate conviction cannot be reviewed as extraordinary motions)
Coleman v. State, 305 Ga. App. 680 (similar principle on collateral attacks labeled otherwise)
Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490 (challenging conviction via mislabeled collateral motion is improper)
Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (orders denying unauthorized postconviction motions must be dismissed)
Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216 (void-sentence motion is the proper direct-review vehicle only for sentences outside statutory authorization)
von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569 (explaining scope of void-sentence claims)