Opinion
A24A0069
08-11-2023
TRAVIS WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In 2005, Travis Williams was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and other crimes. We affirmed the convictions. See Williams v. State, 292 Ga.App. 892 (666 S.E.2d 18) (2008). Williams later filed a motion to modify sentence, which the trial court denied in 2013. We dismissed his appeal from that order because he failed to file a brief and enumeration of errors. See Case No. A13A1895 (dismissed Aug. 8, 2013). Williams thereafter filed various other motions, seeking relief from an "illegal indictment." Citing Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471 (870 S.E.2d 758) (2022), and noting the lapse of time since Williams's convictions and the fact that he had already pursued a direct appeal, the trial court entered an order stating that it was without jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in the motions. Williams filed this appeal.
The motions are not included in the appellate record, but Williams states in his notice of appeal that the motions sought "relief . . . from illegal indictment thru a petition for writ of mandamus amended motion as well as thru out of time appeal."
In substance, Williams's motions challenging his indictment are challenges to the validity of his convictions. See Jones v. State, 290 Ga.App. 490, 494 (2) (659 S.E.2d 875) (2008) (holding that attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). The Supreme Court has made clear that a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction "is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case" and that an appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal. Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 S.E.2d 150) (2010). Thus, Williams is not authorized to collaterally attack his convictions in this manner, and this appeal is subject to dismissal. See id.; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 S.E.2d 786) (2009).
Moreover, this Court previously rejected Williams's challenge to his convictions. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga.App. 326, 327 (713 S.E.2d 438) (2011) ("[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court[.]") (punctuation omitted); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 (540 S.E.2d 612) (2001) (a party "is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal"); Jordan v. State, 253 Ga.App. 510, 511 (2) (559 S.E.2d 528) (2002) ("It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum."). Thus, Williams's current appeal is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Jackson, 273 Ga. at 320.
Finally, the Supreme Court of Georgia eliminated the judicially-created out-of-time-appeal procedure, holding that a trial court is "without jurisdiction to decide [a] motion for out-of-time appeal" on the merits because "there was and is no legal authority for motions for out-of-time appeal in trial courts[.]" Cook, 313 Ga. at 506 (5). This holding applies to "all cases that are currently on direct review or otherwise not yet final." Id.
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.