Randall Schofield v. State
A18A0533
| Ga. Ct. App. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Randall Schofield was convicted in five separate cases (docket nos. 98-C-23892, 98-C-24819, 2005-C-32761, 2010-C-42958, 2011-C-44675).
- In case no. 2011-C-44675 he was sentenced as a recidivist to 30 years with 10 to serve; that sentence was initially probated under the Probation Management Act.
- After probation in 2011-C-44675 was revoked, the ten-year prison term was reinstated.
- Schofield filed a single motion (covering all five dockets) to reduce or correct his sentence, challenging (1) whether he was re-sentenced as a recidivist and (2) the reasonableness of banishment from Houston County.
- The trial court denied the motion in one order (filed in all five cases); Schofield filed five direct appeals, which were consolidated at his request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review re-sentencing/recidivist claim after probation revocation | Schofield argued he was re-sentenced as a recidivist and sought review | State argued the proper post-revocation procedure is an application for discretionary appeal, not a direct appeal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Schofield needed to seek discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(5) |
| Whether denial of motion to modify banishment is appealable when filed outside statutory modification period | Schofield argued banishment from Houston County was unreasonable and sought review of denial | State argued the motion was filed outside the statutory modification window and did not allege a void sentence | Dismissed: appeal not permitted because motion was untimely and did not raise a colorable void-sentence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. State, 233 Ga. App. 873 (holding post-revocation review requires application for discretionary appeal)
- Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346 (explaining statutory period to modify sentence and that untimely motions must allege a void sentence to be appealable)
- Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (defining when a sentence is void — punishment the law does not allow)
- von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569 (clarifying void-sentence claims are limited to sentences unauthorized by law)