Macon man serving life in prison claimed sentence should be voided. Judges disagree
Appellate judges ruled against a Macon man charged in a 2017 rape case who claimed his prison sentence should be voided because of a judge’s mistake.
Michael Anthony Glover was convicted on Aug. 24, 2017, of one count of rape and one count of aggravated sodomy after a three-day jury trial in front of Judge Connie Williford. She sentenced Glover to life imprisonment for the rape charge, plus 25 years for the sodomy charge, to be served consecutively, according to previous Telegraph reporting.
However, Glover claimed last year that the sentence was void because “the law required the trial court to impose a split sentence for aggravated sodomy and to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences,” according to court records. Williford denied his request, and Glover appealed.
Though the appellate judges disagreed with Glover, they ultimately vacated Williford’s denial, advising the local judge that it should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Georgia law grants Williford the power to modify or vacate a sentence if the defendant challenges it within the year or if appellate judges direct the judge to do so.
Since it was filed eight years after his sentence, Williford cannot rule on the request, according to appellate judges.
‘Williford’s failure … in Glover’s favor’
Even though they didn’t consider his sentence to be void, the appellate judges noted that Williford “sentenced Glover to 25 years imprisonment, but did not also sentence him to probation for life following that term of imprisonment,” according to their ruling.
Though Glover was correct that Williford failed to split the sentences regarding his sodomy charge, his 25-year imprisonment is “within the statutory range of punishment, and (Williford’s) failure to include probation is an error in Glover’s favor,” the appellate judges said. She also didn’t impose a mandatory fine.
“In other words, Glover received a sentence that was too lenient under the law,” the appellate judges said.
Glover also argued that he should have been told to serve his sentence concurrently rather than consecutively, but the appellate judges ruled that it is within Williford’s discretion to do so when defendants face multiple charges as long as the punishment for each offense is within the statutory limits, according to court records.
Because “each of Glover’s sentences fell within the statutory limits for the offenses,” appellate judges ruled that his sentence was not void, court records show.
