Hollmon v. State, 305 Ga. 90

In 2004 the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Stanley Hollmon’s malice murder conviction and held his felony murder and criminal attempt convictions were vacated by operation of law (Hollmon I).
In February 2018 the trial court entered a sentence on the previously vacated criminal attempt count.
In March 2018 Hollmon filed a motion for new trial alleging a defective indictment and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not raising that defect.
The trial court, citing Walker‑Madden v. State, ruled Hollmon could not raise those claims because they should have been raised on his direct appeal (the court applied dismissal/determination under that precedent).
The Supreme Court held the 2018 resentencing was unauthorized (a nullity) because the convictions had been vacated as law of the case, and therefore Hollmon’s motion for new trial from that resentencing was itself a nullity and properly dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had authority to resentence Hollmon on a count the Supreme Court had held was vacated by operation of law	Hollmon contended earlier vacatur was wrong or that final judgment was never entered because no discrete sentence had been entered on each count, so resentencing was permissible	The State argued the Supreme Court’s prior holding that the convictions were vacated was law of the case and precluded resentencing	Court held the trial court lacked authority to resentence; the 2018 sentencing on the vacated attempt count is vacated as a nullity
Whether Hollmon could pursue an extraordinary motion for new trial based on indictment defects and counsel ineffectiveness after the 2018 resentencing	Hollmon sought to raise indictment-defect and ineffective-assistance claims via his motion for new trial filed after the unauthorized resentencing	The State relied on precedent that such claims, if discoverable earlier, must have been raised on direct appeal and cannot support an extraordinary motion for new trial; also Hollmon did not file a habeas petition in the correct court	Court held the motion was a nullity because it was filed from an unauthorized resentencing; in any event the claims could have been raised earlier and dismissal was affirmed

Hollmon v. State, 278 Ga. 143, 598 S.E.2d 498 (2004) (affirming murder conviction and noting felony murder and attempt were vacated by operation of law)
Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 434 S.E.2d 479 (1993) (principle concerning vacatur by operation of law)
Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353, 466 S.E.2d 837 (1996) (law‑of‑the‑case bars lower court from relitigating appellate holdings)
Walker‑Madden v. State, 301 Ga. 744, 804 S.E.2d 8 (2017) (procedural bar on raising claims not presented on direct appeal in extraordinary motions)
Keller v. State, 275 Ga. 680, 571 S.E.2d 806 (2002) (when multiple counts tried but written sentence not entered on all counts, final judgment may not have been entered)
Hicks v. McGee, 289 Ga. 573, 713 S.E.2d 841 (2011) (law‑of‑the‑case applies even if prior rulings are alleged erroneous)
Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 563 S.E.2d 856 (2002) (extraordinary motion for new trial or habeas are the available post‑appeal remedies)
Goodwin v. State, 240 Ga. 605, 242 S.E.2d 119 (1978) (errors discoverable with due diligence cannot support extraordinary motion for new trial)
State v. Smith, 276 Ga. 14, 573 S.E.2d 64 (2002) (ineffectiveness claims that could have been raised earlier cannot support extraordinary motion for new trial)