Opinion
A23D0225.
02-09-2023
DARRELL EUGENE YOUNGER v. THE STATE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In 2010, Darrell Eugene Younger pleaded guilty to armed robbery, cruelty to children in the first degree, and burglary. In November 2022, Younger filed a pro se "motion to set aside a void judgment," arguing that the indictment was not returned in open court, the indictment was defective, and that the armed robbery and burglary counts should have merged. The trial court dismissed the motion, and Younger filed this pro se discretionary application. We lack jurisdiction.
Younger's challenges are an attack on his 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"). See also Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 193-194 (695 S.E.2d 244) (2010) (a merger claim is a challenge to a criminal conviction). The Supreme Court, however, 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); see also Weaver v. State, 359 Ga.App. 784, 785 (1) (860 S.E.2d 96) (2021) ("a motion to vacate an allegedly void conviction is an improper mechanism in which to collaterally attack a conviction").
Because Younger is not authorized to collaterally attack his convictions in this manner, this application is hereby DISMISSED. See Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (2) (686 S.E.2d 786) (2009).