David Cordova, also known as David Cordoba, hereinafter “Cordova” brings this pro se appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Long County denying his “motion to vacate void sentence” following his entry of negotiated pleas of guilty to malice murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping with bodily injury, and his consequent sentencing to three terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand this case with direction to the superior court.
On August 26, 1997, a Long County grand jury indicted Cordova along with two other men for the August 16, 1995 malice murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping with bodily injury of Mary Ann Prescott. On September 12, 1997, the State filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for Cordova, alleging as aggravating circumstances that the murder was done during the commission of the felonies of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury, and for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value as provided in then OCGA § 17-10-30, which set forth the statutory aggravating circumstances for imposition of the death penalty; it further alleged that the kidnapping with bodily injury involved the death of the victim. On May 10, 1999, Cordova entered negotiated pleas of guilty to all three charges. On May 13, 1999, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, a consecutive term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the armed robbery, and a third term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the kidnapping, the sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence for malice murder; the sentences on all counts were to run concurrently with a federal sentence of Cordova’s. An application for sentence review was filed on June 7, 1999, and on September 22, 1999, the Sentence Review Panel responded that it was without jurisdiction to review Cordova’s sentences. On February 3, 2014, Cordova filed the present pro se “motion to vacate void sentence,” contending that his sentences are void “as a result of the trial court’s failure to make a contemporaneous specification, beyond a reasonable doubt, the statutory aggravating circumstance required by O.C.G.A. § 17-10-32.1 b authorizing imposition of a life sentence without possibility of parole.” And, so they are.
