824 S.E.2d 685
Ga. Ct. App.2019Background
- In Nov. 2000 Thompson pleaded guilty to multiple sexual and violent offenses and was sentenced to concurrent life and 20-year terms; the sentencing sheet included a special parole condition prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the victim.
- In Jan. 2018 Thompson filed a motion to vacate a void sentence and to withdraw his guilty plea as a matter of right, arguing the parole no-contact condition was illegal because parole conditions are executive, not judicial.
- The trial court found the no-contact parole condition improper, struck that discrete condition, but left the remainder of the sentence intact.
- The trial court dismissed Thompson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed after the term of court in which he was sentenced had expired.
- Thompson appealed, arguing the illegal parole condition was part of his negotiated plea and rendered the entire sentence void, entitling him to withdraw his plea as of right.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an illegal parole no-contact condition voided the entire sentence | The no-contact provision was part of the negotiated plea; its illegality voids the whole sentence | The parole condition is severable; only that discrete provision must be vacated | Court held only the illegal parole provision was void and severed; remainder of sentence stands |
| Whether Thompson had an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea after term expiration | Because entire sentence was void, he could withdraw his plea as of right even after term | Because only a portion was void, no absolute right existed; motion must be filed within sentencing term | Court held no absolute right to withdraw plea; motion untimely and trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant it |
| Whether the record shows the no-contact condition was part of the negotiated plea | Thompson asserts it was part of plea terms | Record lacks a plea agreement or prosecutor statement reflecting the condition as negotiated | Court found record does not support that the condition was a negotiated term |
| Whether Kaiser requires vacating entire sentence where an imposed condition is illegal | Thompson analogizes to Kaiser I vacatur | State distinguishes Kaiser facts: Kaiser involved modification of a negotiated term that made sentence indeterminate | Court found Kaiser I factually inapposite and did not control here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellison v. State, 299 Ga. 779 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (illegal parole-eligibility provision severed; only that provision vacated)
- Humphrey v. State, 297 Ga. 349 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (same principle; discrete parole provision invalidated without voiding remainder)
- Rhone v. State, 310 Ga. App. 182 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (motion to withdraw plea after sentencing term is untimely; habeas is remedy)
- Kaiser v. State, 275 Ga. App. 684 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (context where entire sentence was vacated due to modification of negotiated term that rendered sentence indeterminate)