State v. JonesState v. Jones
After a jury trial, Benjamin R. Jones was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana. The state filed a notice of its intent to seek recidivist punishment pursuant to
1. At the outset, we address Jones’s argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the state filed its notice of aрpeal within 30 days of the denial of the appellee’s motion for new trial insteаd of filing a post-conviction motion contesting the alleged improper sentence. The law is clear that the state is authorized to appeal a void sentence, 1 and that the state’s appeals are governed by the same time limitations as those applied to other appellants in criminal cases. 2 In the absence of express statutory authority requiring the state to file a motion to amend an improper sentence as a prerequisite to appealing that sеntence, we hold that the state may appeal directly the sentence imposed by the trial court or file a motion to amend the sentence and then directly appeal the denial thereof. In any event, the state has 30 days from judgment or from the denial of the motion to amend to file its notice of appeal. Howеver, should the defendant file a motion for new trial, that motion tolls the time within which the statе can directly appeal the sentence. In that case, the state has 30 dаys from the denial of the motion for new trial to appeal the alleged imprоper sentence.
2. The conviction in the instant case was Jones’s second conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute,
Upon conviction of a second or subsequent [violation ofOCGA § 16-13-30 (b) ], he or she shall he imprisoned for not less than ten years nor more than 40 years or life imprisonment. The provisions of subsection (a) of Code Section 17-10-7 shall not apply to a sentence imposed for a second such offense; provided, however, that the remaining provisions of Code Section 17-10-7 shall aрply for any subsequent offense. 3
In interpreting the interplay of§ 16-13-30 (d) and§ 17-10-7 , we must bear in mind the principle that a specific statute will prevail over a general statute, absent any indication of a contrary legislative intent. In this case,§ 16-13-30 (d) provides a specific sentencing scheme for defendants convictеd more than once of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute under§ 16-13-30 (b) . For this reason, the general recidivist scheme of§ 17-10-7 will apply to multiple convictions under§ 16-13-30 (b) only if§ 16-13-30 (d) permits the applicability of§ 17-10-7 . Finally, in interpreting criminal statutes, it is axiomatic that any ambiguities must be construed most favorably to thе defendant. 4
It is well settled that
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Notes
Johnson v. State,
Brown v. State,
Johnson, supra at 457 (4).
(Emphasis supplied.)
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted.)
Mann v. State,