Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DOBY v. EVANS.

WELTNER, Justice.

This is a pro se appeal. Upon supplementation of the record, it appears that, pursuant to a motion filed before the expiration of the term in which the sentence was imposed, the trial court remolded Doby's sentence to run from the date upon which the offenses occurred. Seeking to have the court's order enforced, Doby filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The mandamus court denied the relief he sought, holding that after the expiration of the term at which a judgment is entered, the trial court has no power to amend or vacate its judgment.

1.OCGA § 17-10-1 provides, in part:

After the term of court, or 60 days from the date on which the sentence was imposed by the judge, whichever time is greater, he shall have no authority to suspend, probate, modify, or change the sentence of the defendant, except as otherwise provided by law. [Emphasis supplied.]

2. State v. Bradbury, 167 Ga. App. 390, 392 ( 306 S.E.2d 346) (1983) held:

"Georgia courts have long held that while a trial judge loses the inherent right to modify a judgment after the term expires, a motion made during the term serves to extend the power to modify. [Cit.]" Porterfield v. State, 139 Ga. App. 553, 554 ( 228 S.E.2d 722) [1976].
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.

WELTNER, Justice.

DECIDED DECEMBER 1, 1988 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED DECEMBER 20, 1988.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DOBY v. EVANS
(Dec 1, 1988)