In January 1996, a Ware County jury found Randy Hudson guilty of armed robbery, OCGA § 16-8-41, as well as firearms offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison for armed robbery, plus a total of 15 years for the other offenses. In February 2015, Hudson filed a motion to correct void sentence, arguing that OCGA § 16-8-41 is ambiguous and establishes different punishments for armed robbery and that the rule of lenity therefore requires that he receive the lesser punishment. The trial court found that the sentence was not void, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence Hudson under OCGA § 17-10-1 f, and dismissed the motion. Hudson appeals, contending the trial court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction and in ruling that the sentencing scheme established by OCGA § 16-8-41 is not unconstitutionally vague. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
1. Hudson contends the trial erred in dismissing his motion to correct void sentence on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction rather than reaching the merits of his motion. Although the trial court did lack jurisdiction to modify Hudson’s sentence pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-1 f, because his motion was not filed within the time allowed for such a motion,1 “a sentencing court retains jurisdiction to correct a void sentence at any time.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Rooney v. State, 287 Ga. 1, 2 2 690 SE2d 804 2010. “The only ground for authorizing a trial court to correct a sentence at any time is that the sentence is void. A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Id. Hudson did not seek a reduction in his sentence under OCGA § 17-10-1 f but argued that the trial court had imposed punishment that the law does not allow. Accordingly, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction solely on the basis of the expiration of the time allowed under that Code section. The record shows, however, that the trial court did reach the merits of Hudson’s motion, and reached the correct conclusion, see Division 2, infra. Therefore, this argument is moot.
