Undreas Davis was convicted by a jury of three counts of theft by taking and twelve counts of financial identity fraud.1 Davis appeals the trial court’s judgment sentencing him as a recidivist to fifteen consecutive ten-year terms, for a total of one hundred fifty years, without the possibility of parole. Davis contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a grossly disproportionate sentence of 150 years without the possibility of parole for these property crimes and further asserts that the trial court erred in considering his federal conviction for purposes of recidivist sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-7 c. But Davis failed to raise any issue regarding the disproportionality of his sentence in the trial court, and thus we cannot reach that issue on appeal. Nevertheless, we agree with Davis that the trial court erred in considering his federal conviction as a basis for recidivist sentencing, and we accordingly vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.
Davis was convicted on March 30, 2009, and his sentencing hearing began on April 13, 2009. At that hearing, the prosecution introduced certified copies of three prior felony convictions, two from Michigan and one federal, in support of the State’s request for recidivist sentencing. Davis posed no objection to the two Michigan convictions, which were for uttering and publishing a false, forged, altered or counterfeit instrument and for making a false statement of a material fact in an application for a certificate of title. Davis’s counsel objected, however, to the introduction of his federal felony conviction for theft or receipt of stolen mail in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1708, arguing that the State had failed to establish that this violation would be considered a felony under Georgia law as required under OCGA § 17-10-7 c. The trial court continued the sentencing hearing at the State’s request “to give the State an opportunity to show the Court whether or not this conviction can be considered by the Court in terms of imposing recidivist punishment. . . .”
