Teresa Louise Royals pled guilty to a single count of possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced to twenty-five years, with the first ten years to be served in incarceration and the balance to be served on probation. The
The relevant facts are undisputed. The record shows that Royals was indicted in October 2011 on charges of manufacturing methamphetamine (Count 1), possession of methamphetamine (Count 2), and possession of a schedule IV controlled substance (Count 3). Royals subsequently entered a plea agreement under which the State agreed to nolle prosse Counts 1 and 3 of the indictment in exchange for Royals entering a guilty plea on Count 2. Royals entered this plea in open court in December 2012, at which time she was sentenced. In January 2013, the trial court revoked the suspended portion of Royals’s sentence after she was dismissed from her drug treatment program without having successfully completed the same. Royals then filed her pro se motion seeking a reduction or modification of her sentence. She now appeals from the denial of that motion.
1. A criminal sentence is void “if it imposes a period of confinement or fine greater than the statutory maximum for the offense.” Ray v. State,
2. In her motion, Royals argued that she was innocent of the methamphetamine charge, as demonstrated by the testimony of her co-defendant (who is also her husband), offered at the co-defendant’s plea hearing. On appeal, Royals argues that because her motion was filed within the same term of court in which she entered her guilty plea and because her motion raised a claim as to her innocence, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to treat that pleading as a motion to withdraw Royals’s guilty plea. See Matthews v. State,
The pro se motion filed by Royals was captioned “Motion for Reduction or Modification of Sentence.” Moreover, in that motion Royals neither raised nor argued the question of whether she should be allowed to withdraw her guilty plea. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to treat Royals’s pleading as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. We note, however, that on remand Royals may seek to withdraw her plea even though the term of court in which she originally entered that plea has expired. As we have explained before,
a defendant has an absolute right to withdraw [her] plea before sentence is pronounced. [Because] a void sentence is the same as no sentence at all, the defendant stands in the position as if [she] had pled guilty and not been sentenced, and so may withdraw [her] guilty plea as of right before resentencing, even following the expiration of the term of court in which the void sentence was pronounced.
Hallford v. State,
For the reasons set forth above, the order of the trial court denying Royals’s motion to reduce or modify her sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Notes
A 2013 amendment to this statute created a sentencing scheme whereby punishment is determined by the amount of methamphetamine a defendant possesses. Under the amended statute, possession of one gram or less of methamphetamine is punishable by “imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years,” OCGA § 16-13-30 (c) (1); possession of more than one but less than four grams of methamphetamine is punishable by “imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years,” OCGA § 16-13-30 (c) (2); and possession of more than four but less than 28 grams of methamphetamine is punishable by “imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 15 years,” OCGA § 16-13-30 (c) (3). See Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 3-7B. It is the version of the statute in effect at the time of Royals’s crime, however, that applies to her case. See Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 9-1 (providing that the amendments to OCGA § 16-13-30 “shall apply to offenses which occur on or after July 1,2013. Any offense occurring before July 1,2013, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offensef.]”).
It is unclear why the State opposed Royals’s motion in the trial court, as on appeal the State concedes that the sentence imposed on Royals was illegal.