Alton Hooks was charged with two counts of malice murder, two alternative counts of felony murder involving the same victims, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of possession of a knife during the commission of a fеlony. The State did not file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. A jury found Hooks guilty on all counts. The trial court merged the aggravated assault counts into the murder counts and entered judgment of conviction for each of the remaining сounts. Based on OCGA § 17-10-7 (c), the trial court sentenced Hooks as a recidivist to four consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole for the murder counts. The trial court also sentenced Hooks to a five-year term on the weapons charge.
After Hooks filed a motion for new trial, the State offered to allow Hooks to be re-sentenced on the murder counts to only two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. At a hearing, defense сounsel expressed Hooks’ desire to accept the State’s offer and stated that “he would waive all further motions and appeals and any other appellate remedies that may be available to him... in exchange for this re-sеntencing.” Upon questioning by the trial court, Hooks acknowledged his own understanding of the re-sentencing and his agreement not to pursue those matters raised in the motion for new trial. The trial court re-sentenced Hooks as agreed. Thereafter, Hоoks withdrew the motion for new trial, stating that “it was agreed by all parties that the motion would be withdrawn by [him] in light of the consent modification to his earlier sentence of life without parole ...
About four years later, Hooks filed a pro se motion to vacate void sentences and a motion for out-of-time appeal, contending that the trial court erred in imposing multiple sentences in a single prosecution for offenses which were the same as a matter of fact and law, and in finding a vаlid waiver of Hooks’ rights to a motion for new trial and an appeal in exchange for the removal of void sentences. Hooks also asserted that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to waive those rights when thе trial court had an inherent duty to remedy the imposition of a punishment which the law does not allow. The trial court denied the motion, stating that Hooks “waived all further motions and appeals and any other
*532
appellate remedies that may bе available to him, in exchange for re-sentencing from life without parole to life.” Hooks directly appeals pro se from that order. See
Chester v. State,
1. Hooks contends that the trial court erred by failing to sentence him in accordance with stаtutory requirements. Regardless of whether Hooks validly waived his appellate rights, he nonetheless was entitled to challenge his sentences as void or illegal. See
Baker v. State,
As the trial court recognized, the initial murder sentences were improper. Because there were only two victims, there could not be four murder convictions, and “the separate sentences on the two alternative felony murder counts [were required to] be vacated.”
Malcolm v. State,
Although a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole mаy be imposed for murder, either as a recidivist sentence under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) (2), which requires that the defendant be previously convicted of a serious violent felony (see OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (a)), or as an alternative sentence when the death penalty is sought (see OCGA § 17-10-31.1), neithеr of those circumstances is present in this case.
Funderburk v. State,
supra at 555 (2), fn. 2. See also
State v. Ingram,
Hooks nevertheless complains that only one conviction and sentence was permissible, and that all of the remaining convictions and sentences are void, because there wаs a single prosecution and the same evidence was used to prove all charges. Although Hooks’ appellate brief is somewhat confusing, it is clear that his argument is
*533
heavily based upon OCGA §§ 17-10-6.1 (d) and 17-10-7 (d). Those subsections provide when conviction of two or more crimes is deemed to be only one conviction for the purpose of each code section. The provision in OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (d) is part of the definition of “a first conviction of any serious violent felony,” which is punishable pursuant to subseсtion (c) of the statute. The purpose of OCGA § 17-10-7 (d) is to clarify how to count prior convictions when applying the recidivist punishments set forth in other subsections of that statute.
SeePhilmore v. State,
In arguing merger, Hooks mistakenly applies the “actual evidence” test. This Court adopted the “required evidence” test in
Drinkard v. Walker,
Accordingly, we сonclude that the corrected sentences entered by the trial court are not void for any reason which has been asserted by Hooks, and that the denial of the motion to vacate void sentences must be affirmed. Chester v. State, supra.
2. Hooks further contеnds that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his rights to appellate review in exchange for the trial court’s performance of its inherent judicial duty to vacate void sentences and impose a statutorily authorized sentence. The State’s only response is to request that this Court remand the case to the trial court for a determination of Hooks’ appellate rights.
Georgia allows a defendant to enter into a negotiated agreement to forego the right to seek post-conviction relief as a means to serve the interests of the State and the defendant in achieving finality. [Cit.] In particular, this Court has held that a criminal defendant may waive his statutory right to appeal a conviction in exchange for the Stаte’s agreement not to seek the death penalty at sentencing, so long as the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and *534 intelligent. [Cits.] The fact that a waiver of the right to appeal is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent may be shown in two ways. First, a signed waiver may indicate that the defendant understands the right he is waiving. Second, and more important, detailed questioning of the defendant by the trial court that reveals that he was informed of his right to appeal and that he voluntarily waived that right is sufficient to show the existence of a valid, enforceable waiver. [Cit.]
Rush v. State,
In accordance with such contract principles, one Georgia commentator has stated that a sentencing “agreement presupposes that the State has valid statutory grounds for [the mоre severe sentence which it forgoes]. If not, then it could in all likelihood not be enforced against the defendant because of lack of consideration.” McFadden, Brewer & Sheppard,
Ga. Appellate Practice
(2nd ed.), § 19-7, p. 495, fn. 8. In examining whether a waiver of appeal rights was vоluntary, knowing, and intelligent, this Court has at least implied that the agreement must not be illusory.
Rush v. State,
supra (“Having received the benefit of the agreement, [the defendant] cannot now ignore its terms and seek relief via an appeal to this Court.”);
Thomas v. State,
supra (“the terms of the agreement were highly favorable to the [defendant, who] avoided any possibility of [the more severe sentence] because of the agreement.”). Other courts have directly addressed on the merits an assertion of inadequate сonsid
*535
eration in return for a waiver of appellate rights.
United States v. Hernandez,
In this case, however, the murder sentences originally imposed on Hooks were void and, thus, were not ever enforceable against him.
Funderburk v. State,
supra. Moreover, Hooks did not execute any signed waiver and, at the re-sentеncing hearing, was never informed that he was not required to waive his appellate rights in order to obtain relief from the void sentences. There was not “detailed questioning of the defendant by the trial court that reveals that he was [fully] informed of his right to appeal.... [Cit.]”
Rush v. State,
supra. See also
United States v. Randolph,
Because the record reveals that, as a matter of law, Hooks did not validly waive his appellate rights, the dеnial of the motion for out-of-time appeal “must be reversed, and the case ‘returned to the (trial) court with direction to authorize an out-of-time appeal from’ ” the judgments of conviction entered against Hooks.
Cobb v. State,
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and case remanded with direction.