Gray v. State, 310 Ga. 259

In January 2017 Gray pled guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of children and was sentenced to 10 years served plus 10 years probation with sex-offender conditions.
Ten months after sentencing Gray filed a motion to modify his sentence; about eleven months later the parties presented a consent order reducing the term to 5 years served and 15 years probation.
A different judge entered the modification order 21 months after the original sentence; three weeks later the originally assigned judge sua sponte vacated that Modification Order and reinstated the original sentence without notice or a hearing.
Gray appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the reinstatement, holding OCGA § 17-10-1(f) makes the statutory time limit jurisdictional so a court lacks power to enter a modification after one year regardless of when the motion was filed.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a motion filed within the one-year statutory period preserves a trial court’s authority to enter a modification after that period, and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 17-10-1(f) permits a trial court to enter a sentence-modifying order after the one-year period when the motion to modify was filed within that period	Gray: A timely motion preserves the court’s power under the common-law rule; the later-entered modification was valid and reinstatement was void	State/Court of Appeals: The statute’s one-year limit is jurisdictional; courts lack authority to modify after one year regardless of when the motion was filed	The Supreme Court held the statute does not clearly override the common-law rule; a motion filed within the time preserves the court’s authority to act later; reversed and remanded

United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (1914) (common-law principle that proceedings begun during term allow later alteration of judgments)
Miraglia v. Bryson, 152 Ga. 828 (1922) (Georgia following Mayer’s rule)
Porterfield v. State, 139 Ga. App. 553 (1976) (motion made during term extends power to modify sentence)
Tyson v. State, 301 Ga. App. 295 (2009) (applies principle that timely motion preserves power to modify despite expiration of term)
Mar-Pak Michigan, Inc. v. Pointer, 226 Ga. 189 (1970) (treats "jurisdiction" as equivalent to "power and authority")
Coen v. Aptean, Inc., 307 Ga. 826 (2020) (statutory text should be read to adhere to common law when reasonably possible)
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848 (2017) (presumption that statutes are enacted with knowledge of existing common law)