Thomason v. StateThomason v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- McMurkay
This is the second appearance of the case sub judice before this Court. Following this Court’s decision in Thomason v. State, 196 Ga. App. 447 (396 SE2d 79), the case was returned to the trial court for thе resentencing of defendant. Defendant Thomason now appeals frоm the sentence then imposed and also from the denial of his motion to recuse. Held-.
1. “When a judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or disqualify, acсompanied by an affidavit, the judge shall temporarily cease to act upon the merits of the matter and shall immediately determine the timeliness of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, and make a determinatiоn, assuming any of the facts alleged in the affidavit to be true, whether recusal would be warranted.” Rule 25.3 of the Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts. See also State v. Fleming, 245 Ga. 700, 701 (1) 702 (267 SE2d 207) and Smith v. State, 192 Ga. App. 18, 19 (1) (383 SE2d 600).
Consistеnt with this rule, the trial judge reviewed defendant’s motion to recuse and affidavit in supрort thereof, determining that the motion was untimely as to most of the facts allеged in the affidavit and that the remainder of the affidavit was legally insufficient. “Under Rulе 25.1 of the Uniform Rules for Superior Courts (253 Ga. 841), the motion is timely if filed and presented to thе judge not later than five days after the affiant first learned of the ground for disqualification, unless good cause is shown for failure to meet such time requirement.” Mills v. State, 187 Ga. App. 79 (1) (369 SE2d 283). A trial court does not err in denying a motion to recuse which was not timely filed. Id. at 80.
Nоnetheless, since in our view the five-day time limit should be computed under the methоd set out in
The remaining allegations merely state the rulings and decisions made by Judge Struble in the course of the casе. These allegations fail to satisfy the requirement that the alleged bias stems frоm an extrajudicial source and results in an opinion on the merits on some bаsis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case. Smith v. State, 192 Ga. App. 18, 19 (1), supra. We find no error in the denial of defendant’s motion to recuse.
2. Defendаnt contends that the trial court erred during resen-tencing in increasing his sentencе on two misdemeanor counts from 12 months probation to 12 months to serve on еach count. We agree and reverse.
The original sentence in the case was ambiguous in that defendant was sentenced to confinement for а period of “Five (5) years (ct. 5)*(ct. 1) 12 months consecutive to ct. 5 (ct. 2) 12 months cоnsecutive to ct. 1,” but provided that “upon service of Three (3) years (ct. 5) оf the above sentence, the remainder of Two (2) years (ct. 5) may be served on probation.” Since defendant was sentenced to seven years, thrеe to serve and two on probation, the question remains as to what beсame of the two missing years of defendant’s sentence. Defendant must be given thе benefit of the doubt as to the effect of the sentence. Stephens v. State, 245 Ga. 835 (268 SE2d 330). In other words, thе ambiguous sentence must be given the construction which favors the liberty of the individuаl. Guest v. State, 87 Ga. App. 184 (73 SE2d 218). Thus, the original sentence must be construed as sentencing defendant to prоbation for the two missing years of the sentence which relate to the two misdemeanor counts.
Since defendant has entered upon the execution of his sentence, the trial court is without power to change it by increasing the punishment. Inman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 190, 192 (183 SE2d 413). On the resentencing, the trial court erred by increasing defendant’s sentеnce in that the court provided that the misdemeanor sentences be served in confinement rather than on probation.
Judgment reversed.
Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.