Hudson v. the State, 334 Ga. App. 166

In 1996 Randy Hudson was convicted of armed robbery and related firearms offenses; he received life imprisonment for armed robbery plus additional terms totaling 15 years.
In February 2015 Hudson filed a motion to correct a void sentence, arguing OCGA § 16-8-41(b) is ambiguous because it authorizes either life imprisonment or a determinate term (10–20 years), and under the rule of lenity he should receive the lesser determinate sentence.
The trial court dismissed the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence under OCGA § 17-10-1(f) and that the sentence was not void.
Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court erred by relying on lack of jurisdiction and that the sentencing scheme is unconstitutionally vague/ambiguous so the rule of lenity requires a lesser sentence.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court had authority to consider voidness (a court may correct a void sentence at any time), found the court did reach the merits, and affirmed: OCGA § 16-8-41(b) is not ambiguous and a life sentence falls within the statutory range, so the sentence is not void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hudson’s motion because the statutory window under OCGA § 17-10-1(f) had passed	Hudson: The court improperly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; a court can correct a void sentence at any time so his motion should be considered	State: The statutory one-year/120-day remedial window had expired, so the trial court lacked authority to modify the sentence	Court: Although § 17-10-1(f) time expired, sentencing courts retain jurisdiction to correct void sentences anytime; the trial court did reach the merits and its disposition is therefore reviewable (moot as to jurisdiction)
Whether OCGA § 16-8-41(b) is ambiguous such that the rule of lenity requires imposing a determinate term rather than life	Hudson: The statute provides two different maximums (life or 10–20 years), creating ambiguity; apply rule of lenity to give lesser punishment	State: The statute authorizes life as the statutory maximum, with discretion to impose a lesser determinate term; no ambiguity abrogating life exists	Court: OCGA § 16-8-41(b) is not ambiguous; life is the maximum and a determinate term is an authorized alternative; Hudson’s life sentence falls within statutory range and is not void

Rooney v. State, 287 Ga. 1 (court may correct a void sentence at any time)
Corey v. State, 216 Ga. App. 180 (armed robbery statute authorizes life as the maximum with an alternative determinate term)
McNair v. State, 293 Ga. 282 (rule of lenity applies only in certain ambiguities, especially misdemeanor vs felony distinctions)
Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346 (once statutory modification period expires, court may only correct a sentence if it is void)
Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (sentence within statutory range is not void)
Spargo v. State, 332 Ga. App. 410 (same: sentence within statutory range is not void)
Williams v. State, 331 Ga. App. 46 (affirming that a sentence within statutory range is not void)