Author: Captured King
There are many giants that prisoners face while fighting for justice. Some giants are obvious. Some are hidden. Some stand directly in your path and dare you to challenge them. For me, one of the greatest monsters I have ever faced was not a prosecutor, a jury, or even a prison sentence. It was the denial of my O.C.G.A. 17-9-4 motions.
Back in 2011, my life was hopeful. That’s the word for it. Hopeful. Because when I read that law, knowing the situation and circumstances in my case, I just knew in my heart that I’d obtain relief.
It was the plain language that got me. The way I read it, I could challenge my conviction and even the jurisdiction of the court. The law appeared plain and straightforward. If a count failed to allege an actual crime, then that count was void. If the count was void, then any judgment flowing from that count was void. And if the judgment was void, then the resulting sentence was void as well.
To me, this was not a complicated argument. It was a matter of law.
I believed I had discovered a clear path to challenge a void count within my indictment. I felt happy. Hopeful. I thought it was simple due to the record and the evidence in my case. So I sat down and filed my motion under O.C.G.A. 17-9-4. I expected the courts to examine the merits of the issue.
Instead, the motion was denied. The courts relied on prior decisions and labeled my filing an “improper vehicle.”
I remember feeling confused.
How could a challenge to a void judgment be improper? How could a challenge to a count that allegedly failed to state a crime be improper? The law seemed to say one thing, while my experience in court said another.
Still, I refused to quit.
In 2012, I filed another motion under O.C.G.A. 17-9-4. This time, I challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction and judgment based upon what I believed was an invalid waiver of counsel. Again, I thought the issue deserved consideration. If a waiver of counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, then serious constitutional questions existed.
But in 2013, another shock came.
The motion was denied by a judge who had already been recused from my case years earlier, back in 2005.
At that moment, the giant grew larger.
I could not understand how a recused judge could later return and rule on motions in the same case. I appealed, believing that surely this issue would be addressed. Surely someone would explain how this happened.
Instead, the focus shifted elsewhere. My appeal was characterized as an attempt to relitigate issues or pursue another appeal. Yet the question that troubled me most seemed to remain unanswered: What about the recused judge? What about the denial of the O.C.G.A. 17-9-4 motion itself?
Years later, that question still lingers. And still, to this day, I don’t quite understand why.
Sometimes it feels as though the law applies to everyone except me. No matter what issue is raised, no matter what record is presented, no matter what procedural irregularity appears, relief remains out of reach. Even issues that seem fundamental — jurisdiction, waiver of counsel, judicial recusal — appear to vanish into silence.
That silence can be difficult to carry.
That hope I had back in 2011 — I think about it now. I read that law and I just knew in my heart. And maybe that’s the hardest part of all of this. Not the denials by themselves, but how far I’ve come from that certain, hopeful man sitting down to write his first motion, believing the law would mean what it says.
To the senators and legislators of this beautiful State of Georgia, I ask only one thing: uphold the law equally. If mistakes have been made over the years, please create pathways for courts to correct them. The people of Georgia deserve confidence that the law comes from the Legislature and Constitution — not from procedural barriers that prevent important issues from ever being heard.
I want this one thing understood above everything else: that O.C.G.A. 17-9-4 needs to be enforced correctly.
My fight continues. My faith continues. And despite every obstacle, I still believe that truth matters.
I still believe that the law should mean what it says.
And I still believe that one day this giant will finally be confronted.