In State v. King, A13A1127 (Nov. 14, 2013), the Georgia Court of Appeals reaffirmed a fundamental principle of guilty plea negotiations and sentencing: the trial court, not the State, has ultimate authority on sentencing.

Facing armed robbery charges in Troup County, Georgia, King and his attorney negotiated a guilty plea wherein King would plead guilty to robbery and aggravated assault. As part of the negotiations, the State recommended a sentence of 20 years, 15 of which would be served in prison. The trial court accepted King’s guilty plea but deviated from the State’s recommendation and sentenced King to 15 years, 5 of which to be served in prison.

The State attempted to set aside the guilty plea because the Court did not sentence pursuant to its recommendation. Finding no relief at the trial level, the State appealed, claiming it had a right to appeal “void” sentences.

The Court of appeals found that the sentence of 15 serve 5 is within the statutorily permissible range of punishment for robbery and aggravated assault and, as such, the sentence was not legally “void.” Further, because the State has no authority to appeal an otherwise valid sentence, the Court found it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the State’s appeal and dismissed it.

This case highlights the oft-held misconception that prosecutors hold all the power in terms of criminal sentencing. Although King’s decision actually serves to benefit the criminal defendant, many cases wherein the court deviates from the sentencing recommendation result in harsher sentences than recommended, not lighter. As such, it is always best practice for attorneys to advise criminal defendants during the course of plea negotiations that the judge has final say in terms of sentencing, regardless of what the State may recommend.

The full King opinion can be found here:

https://efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=f4f20027-eb1c-488e-bc0a-8337ccc0c334