Opinion
A22A0724
12-30-2021
JOHN R. NASHID v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
John R. Nashid was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and other crimes, and this Court affirmed his convictions on appeal. See Nashid v. State, 271 Ga.App. 202 (609 S.E.2d 106) (2004). In May 2021, Nashid filed a motion to dismiss his criminal case, The trial court denied Nashid's motion, and he filed this appeal. We lack jurisdiction.
In his motion to dismiss, Nashid claimed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because his indictment was not returned in open court. This is an attack on Nashid's convictions. See Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 149 (3) (816 S.E.2d 646) (2018) ("Appellant claims that his convictions are void because the record does not show that his indictment was returned in open court."); Jones v. State, 290 Ga.App. 490, 494 (2) (659 S.E.2d 875) (2008) (holding that challenges to the indictment "are essentially attempts to vacate a judgment of conviction"). A "petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case." Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 S.E.2d 786) (2009). And any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a motion must be dismissed. Id. at 218 (2).
A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. See Harper, 286 Ga. at 217, n.1; Burg v. State, 297 Ga.App. 118, 119 (676 S.E.2d 465) (2009). Although Nashid alleged in his motion to dismiss that his convictions and sentence are void, he attacks his convictions, not his sentence. See Jones, 290 Ga.App. at 494 (2). Accordingly, he has not raised a colorable void sentence claim. See von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 S.E.2d 446) (2013) ("Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to claims that - even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed - the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically because it exceeds the most severe punishment for which the applicable penal statute provides.").
For these reasons, Nashid's appeal is hereby DISMISSED.