Gholston v. State
327 Ga. App. 790
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- In January 2010 Deante' Gholston pleaded guilty to armed robbery and robbery by force and received two consecutive 15-year sentences (first 15 years confinement, second 15 years probation).
- Gholston filed a pro se “Extraordinary Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea” on January 28, 2011, claiming the indictment failed to allege essential elements (including venue) and that the two offenses should have merged for sentencing.
- The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely; Gholston appealed the dismissal.
- The court examined whether the motion was a timely motion to withdraw plea or a motion in arrest of judgment, both of which must be filed within the same term of court as the plea or judgment.
- The plea and judgment were entered in January 2010 during the December 2009 term; a new term began February 1, 2010, so the January 2011 filing was outside the required term and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
- The court also held Gholston’s claims did not properly assert a void sentence (which can be challenged anytime) because his claims attacked conviction validity, not a sentence that was outside the statutory range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Jurisdiction of motion to withdraw plea | Gholston: motion challenges indictment/merger and should be considered despite delay | State: motion was filed after the term in which plea/judgment entered; court lacked jurisdiction | Motion untimely; trial court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
| Void-sentence exception to timeliness | Gholston: sentence void, so claim can be raised anytime | State: claims attack conviction, not a void sentence; sentence within statutory range | Claim not a void-sentence challenge; exception does not apply |
| Sufficiency of indictment (elements/venue) | Gholston: indictment failed to allege essential elements and venue | State: such defects challenge conviction validity and are subject to term-based timeliness rules | Claim attacks conviction validity and is untimely |
| Merger of convictions for sentencing | Gholston: armed robbery and robbery by force should have merged | State: merger claim challenges convictions, not sentence; sentencing within statutory range | Merger claim is a conviction challenge and untimely; sentence lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagan v. State, 290 Ga. 353 (motion to withdraw plea or motion in arrest must be filed within same term as plea/judgment)
- Ward v. State, 311 Ga. App. 53 (void sentence may be challenged anytime; sentence within statutory range is not void)
- Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192 (merger claims challenge convictions, not sentences)
- Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490 (distinguishing conviction-validity claims from void-sentence claims)
- Rogers v. State, 314 Ga. App. 398 (merger and conviction-challenge timeliness)