Kevin Floyd v. State
A18A0501
| Ga. Ct. App. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Defendant Kevin Floyd pleaded guilty in 2013 to child molestation and was sentenced to 15 years, with 8 years to serve in confinement.
- At the time of the offense Floyd was 18 and the victim was 13.
- In 2017 Floyd filed a motion to correct a void sentence, arguing his conviction should have been for a misdemeanor (given the ages) and that OCGA § 17-10-6.2(b) required a split sentence of the minimum term plus probation.
- The trial court denied the motion to correct a void sentence.
- Floyd appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, claiming his sentence was void because it exceeded what the statutes allowed for his age/age-difference and sentencing structure.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding Floyd had not made a colorable showing that his sentence was void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is void because conviction should have been misdemeanor given ages | Floyd: He was 18 and victim 13, so statute mandates misdemeanor (victim under statutory range) | State: Offense properly punished as a felony under OCGA §16-6-4(b)(2) because victim was under 14 | Held: Sentence lawful as felony; statute’s misdemeanor provision did not apply; no void sentence |
| Whether OCGA §17-10-6.2(b) required minimum term plus probation (split sentence) | Floyd: Court was required to impose at least the minimum term of imprisonment followed by at least 1 year probation | State: Sentencing discretion allowed within statutory range; prior case law interprets §17-10-6.2(b) as mandating inclusion of minimum term but not restricting valid felony sentence here | Held: Claim not colorable; Bowen v. State controls and does not render sentence void |
| Whether a direct appeal lies from denial of motion to correct a void sentence | Floyd: Direct appeal appropriate because sentence is allegedly void | State: Direct appeal only if a colorable void-sentence claim is raised | Held: Direct appeal not permitted; Floyd failed to raise a colorable void-sentence claim |
| Whether sentence exceeded statutory maximums or was otherwise unauthorized by law | Floyd: Implicit claim that sentencing exceeded authorized punishment | State: Sentence falls within statutory range for the felony | Held: Sentence within statutory range and therefore not void |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216 (void-sentence direct-appeal standard)
- Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118 (limiting motions to vacate void sentences to colorable claims)
- von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569 (void-sentence scope normally applies where sentence exceeds authorized punishment)
- Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (sentence within statutory range is not void)
- Bowen v. State, 307 Ga. App. 204 (interpretation of OCGA §17-10-6.2(b) regarding minimum term inclusion)