State v. Stanford, 312 Ga. 707

Antwon Stanford pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary and had eight prior felony convictions, including at least four prior burglary convictions.
The State sought recidivist sentencing under OCGA §§ 16-7-1 and 17-10-7; the trial court imposed 25 years and suspended the final 20 years.
The State appealed the suspension; the Court of Appeals relied on Goldberg v. State to uphold application of the general recidivist statute and the suspension.
The burglary statute, OCGA § 16-7-1(d), expressly bars suspension, probation, deferral, or withholding of sentence for four-time recidivist burglars.
The general recidivist statute, OCGA § 17-10-7(a), requires the longest prescribed sentence for recidivists but permits judges to suspend or probate the maximum sentence "unless otherwise provided by law."
The Georgia Supreme Court held that § 16-7-1(d) controls the suspension question, making the trial court’s partial suspension void and remanding for resentencing or other correction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could suspend part of a recidivist burglary sentence for a four-time burglar	State: § 16-7-1(d) bars suspension; trial court’s suspension was unlawful	Stanford: Goldberg and OCGA § 17-10-7(a) allow courts to suspend the maximum sentence, so suspension was permissible	Held: § 16-7-1(d) prohibits suspension; the suspended portion was void
Whether Goldberg compelled use of the general recidivist statute instead of burglary-specific provisions	State: Goldberg does not address suspension and does not override a specific statutory bar	Stanford/Ct. of Appeals: Goldberg harmonizes the statutes and authorizes § 17-10-7 to apply	Held: Goldberg addressed sentence length, not suspension; it does not control here
Whether § 17-10-7(a)’s probate/suspension permission preempts statutory limits in other recidivism laws	State: § 17-10-7(a) is qualified by "unless otherwise provided by law" and yields to specific prohibitions	Stanford: § 17-10-7(a) is supplemental and permits suspension absent conflict	Held: The qualification means § 16-7-1(d) controls; no preemption of the burglary statute
Remedy for an illegal/suspended sentence that conflicts with § 16-7-1(d)	State: Suspended portion is void and court must correct sentence	Stanford: (implicit) seek to preserve imposed sentence	Held: Sentence (as imposed) was void; remand for resentencing or to strike suspension and leave the remainder intact

Goldberg v. State, 282 Ga. 542 (2007) (harmonized recidivist statutes as to sentence length but did not decide suspension issue)
State v. Stanford, 356 Ga. App. 594 (2020) (Court of Appeals decision upholding suspension based on Goldberg)
Philmore v. State, 300 Ga. 558 (2017) (sentence not allowed by law is void)
Wolfe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 300 Ga. 223 (2016) (issues not decided in an opinion are not precedent)
State v. Nankervis, 295 Ga. 406 (2014) (rule of lenity applies only to ambiguous statutes)