Labarrion Harris v. State
A18A0837
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- In 2011 LaBarrion Harris pleaded guilty to armed robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; total sentence 35 years (20 years to serve, remainder on probation).
- Harris did not file a direct appeal following sentencing.
- In March 2017 Harris filed a motion to vacate a void sentence arguing the 1978 contract by the Code Revision Commission with a private publisher (which codified Georgia law) constituted an unconstitutional delegation of the General Assembly’s legislative power and affected the validity of criminal statutes/sentencing.
- The trial court summarily denied Harris’s motion; Harris sought review, the Georgia Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether Harris’s claim, filed after the statutory time for sentence modification, raised a colorable claim that his sentence was void (i.e., punishment not allowed by law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris may challenge his sentence after the statutory modification period by arguing the Code Revision Commission’s contract made the criminal statutes (and his sentence) void | Harris argued the codification contract amounted to an unconstitutional delegation that altered substantive law, rendering his sentence void and subject to post-period modification | State argued Harris failed to show his sentence exceeded statutory punishment or was otherwise void; the Commission’s role is limited to codification, not altering substantive law | Court held Harris did not show his sentence was void; because the sentence is within statutory range and no colorable voidness claim was raised, the trial court’s denial was not subject to direct appeal and the appeal was dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. Allen, 299 Ga. 716 (court described the Commission’s primary purpose as contracting for codification and not changing substantive law)
- Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Comm., 244 Ga. 325 (discusses Commission’s role in code revision)
- Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346 (explains the §17-10-1(f) time limits for modifying sentences and that after the period a court may only correct a void sentence)
- Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (defines a void sentence as punishment the law does not allow and holds sentences within statutory range are not void)