Travis D. Hodges v. State, A17A1125

In June 2002, Travis D. Hodges pled guilty to three counts of armed robbery and received three consecutive 10-year prison terms.
In March 2016 Hodges filed a “Motion to Correct an Illegal and/or Void Sentence,” arguing the sentences should have run concurrently; the trial court denied relief.
Hodges filed a direct appeal from that denial; this Court dismissed it, noting imposition of consecutive versus concurrent sentences is discretionary with the trial court.
Hodges then filed another motion to vacate, claiming the consecutive sentences were void because they allegedly amounted to "deferred" sentencing; the trial court denied that motion on November 17, 2016.
Hodges filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2017; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Hodges' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Notice of appeal was timely or otherwise reviewable	Notice was filed 54 days after order; appeal untimely under OCGA § 5-6-38(a)	Appeal dismissed as untimely; lacked jurisdiction
Whether consecutive sentences are void	Consecutive sentences were improper/void because they "deferred" sentencing	Running sentences consecutively is within trial court discretion and does not defer sentencing	No colorable void-sentence claim; consecutive terms not void; no direct appeal jurisdiction

Simpson v. State, 310 Ga. App. 63 (trial court has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences)
Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (requirement that notice of appeal be timely to confer appellate jurisdiction)
Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216 (direct appeal lies from denial of motion to vacate void sentence only if claim is colorable)
Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118 (same principle regarding appeals from void-sentence motions)
von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569 (void-sentence motions limited to sentences unauthorized by law)
Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669 (sentence within statutory range is not void)