Paradise v. State
321 Ga. App. 371
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Paradise was tried in January 1993 and found guilty on four counts each of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, and child molestation; the trial court merged the counts of aggravated child molestation into aggravated sodomy and imposed consecutive life sentences on the sodomy counts and consecutive 20-year terms on the molestation counts, with the final 20 years to be served on probation.
- Paradise's direct appeal was affirmed in Paradise v. State, 212 Ga. App. 166 (1994).
- On February 13, 2012, Paradise filed a pro se motion to vacate a void sentence in the trial court, which denied relief.
- Paradise has filed multiple motions challenging his sentence as void since 1998, including an extraordinary motion for correction of sentence in 1998 and another in 2004; many of these motions were denied or untimely, with limited or no appellate review.
- In the current appeal, the State contends the appeal is barred by res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule; Paradise argues otherwise.
- The trial court and the appellate courts treated Paradise's void-sentence challenges as precluded by law-of-the-case and res judicata, leading to dismissal of the appeal as barred by these doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the current appeal is barred by law-of-the-case/res judicata | Paradise argues the sentence is void and seeks review | State contends the issue has been litigated and is binding law of the case | Appeal dismissed under law-of-the-case rule |
| Whether Paradise can challenge a void sentence on direct appeal after prior motions | Paradise asserts void-sentence grounds warrant direct consideration | Void-sentence claims precluded; relief limited to void-sentence challenges previously raised | Void-sentence challenges barred by res judicata/law-of-the-case |
| Whether the distinction between void sentence and overall conviction affects review | Paradise treats sentence as void; seeks relief | Void-sentence doctrine requires that the sentence itself be forbidden by law | Only void sentences may be corrected; broader conviction challenges not appropriate for void-sentence remedy |
| Whether collateral estoppel or res judicata apply to preclude relief | Not provided separately; claims are ongoing | Collateral estoppel/res judicata apply because orders arise from same action | Collateral estoppel and res judicata inapplicable; law-of-the-case controls |
| Whether the court properly addressed merits or held evidentiary hearings | Requests that merits be considered and an evidentiary hearing be held | Merits review and hearings are barred by earlier rulings | Merits/hearings not considered due to law-of-the-case dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326 (2011) (law-of-the-case binding on subsequent proceedings in this case)
- Howard v. State, 289 Ga. 207 (2011) (cannot relitigate same issues previously dismissed)
- Rooney v. State, 318 Ga. App. 385 (2012) (direct appeal from denial of void-sentence motion unnecessary; void-sentence claims limited)
- Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192 (2010) (void-sentence challenge; proper remedy; conviction review separate)
- State v. Mizell, 288 Ga. 474 (2011) (collateral estoppel and res judicata inapplicable here)