Full text
Patrick Timothy Wyatt v. State
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,__________________ June 30, 2014
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A14A1417. PATRICK TIMOTHY WYATT v. THE STATE.
In 1994, Patrick Timothy Wyatt was found guilty of a sex offense. In 2008, he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender. In 2014, Wyatt filed a motion to correct void sentence, arguing that a requirement that he register as a sexual offender violates the ex post facto clause. After the trial court denied Wyatt’s motion, he filed this direct appeal. A direct appeal may lie from an order denying or dismissing a motion to vacate a void sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611 (a) (409 SE2d 517) (1991). “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.” Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Contrary to Wyatt’s contention, the law requiring convicted sex offenders to register is not an ex post facto law. See Watson v. State, 283 Ga. App. 635 (642 SE2d 328) (2007). Under these circumstances, Wyatt has not raised a colorable void
sentence claim, and his appeal is therefore DISMISSED.1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 06/30/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk.
1 To the extent Wyatt’s motion may also be construed as one alleging a void conviction, we note that an appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a challenge is subject to dismissal. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192 (695 SE2d 244) (2010); Harper, supra at 218.