In 2001, George Colbert entered into a negotiated guilty plea on charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and theft of a motor vehicle. The trial court accepted this plea and sentenced Colbert to 18 years imprisonment each on the charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault, and armed robbery, and 10 years imprisonment on the charge of theft, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On the sentencing sheet, the trial court noted that Colbert was sentenced pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-7 a and c, thereby indicating that Colbert was not eligible for parole. This Court subsequently confirmed Colbert’s convictions. See Colbert v. State 1 affirming the denial of Colbert’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In October 2009, Colbert filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence, claiming that it was illegal and therefore void. The trial court denied that motion and Colbert filed this appeal. Because Colbert’s sentence was within the range allowed by the applicable statutes, his claim that such sentence was void is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
“A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. When the sentence imposed falls within the statutory range of punishment, the sentence is not void . . . .” Citations and punctuation omitted. Jones v. State .2 Colbert does not dispute that the sentences imposed by the trial court fell within the range allowed by law. See former OCGA § 16-5-40 b 2001 kidnapping punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years; OCGA § 16-5-21 b aggravated assault punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 to 20 years; OCGA § 16-8-41 b armed robbery punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years; OCGA § 16-8-12 a 1 theft punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 to 10 years. Rather he asserts that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence when it simultaneously sentenced him to less than the statutory maximum and sentenced him as a recidivist, pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-7 a and c. In other words, Colbert claims his sentence was illegal because, although allegedly imposed pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-7, the trial court failed to comply with that statute’s mandate that it impose the maximum penalty allowed by law. This argument fails for at least two reasons.
