Georgia Appellate Court Dismisses State’s Challenge to Reduced Sentence for Convicted Molester
GEORGIA – A Georgia appellate court has dismissed an appeal by the State seeking to overturn a significantly reduced sentence for Bryan Christopher Bertrand, a man convicted in 2019 of sodomy and child molestation. The ruling confirms that Bertrand’s time behind bars will be effectively cut in half—from 20 years to 10 years—following a complex series of legal maneuvers and a successful habeas corpus petition.
The Original Sentence (2019)
In 2019, Bertrand entered a negotiated guilty plea for his crimes. At that time, the court structured his sentence to ensure he would spend two decades in prison:
- Sodomy: 20 years, with 10 to serve in custody.
- Child Molestation (Count A): 30 years, with 10 to serve, set to run consecutively (after) the sodomy count.
- Child Molestation (Count B): 30 years, to run concurrently.
- Aggregate Total: 50 years, with 20 years to serve in prison.
The Legal Shift: Habeas Corpus and Resentencing
In 2023, Bertrand filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted partial relief, ruling that the two child molestation counts should have “merged” into a single count for sentencing purposes under Georgia law (OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (b)).
When the case returned to the trial court for resentencing, the judge made a pivotal change. Instead of keeping the molestation sentence consecutive to the sodomy sentence, the judge ordered them to run concurrently (at the same time).
This change drastically altered Bertrand’s actual time in prison:
- New Aggregate Total: 20 years, with 10 years to serve.
- Result: Because Bertrand had already served 10 years, this new structure effectively made him eligible for release from custody.
The State’s Appeal and the Court’s Decision
The State appealed the new sentence, arguing that the trial court overstepped its bounds. Prosecutors contended that the court only had the authority to merge the molestation counts, not to “modify” the sodomy sentence by making it concurrent, especially since more than a year had passed since the original judgment (OCGA § 17-10-1 (f)).
However, the Appellate Court rejected this argument. In its decision, the Court emphasized several key legal principles:
“Each count stands alone.” The Court noted that the trial court did not actually change the sodomy sentence (it remained 20-to-serve-10). Rather, it exercised its legal discretion to decide how the new molestation sentence would relate to the existing one.
- Jurisdictional Limits: The State has a very limited right to appeal in criminal cases. Since the trial court had the legal jurisdiction to impose concurrent sentences during a remand, the State did not have a valid ground to appeal under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a)(6).
- Time Served: The Court clarified that the 10 years Bertrand had already spent in prison were legally attributed to his sodomy conviction. Therefore, the resentencing of the molestation count did not retroactively interfere with the sodomy sentence.
Final Outcome
Because the trial court acted within its discretionary authority to structure the sentences concurrently, the Appellate Court determined it lacked the jurisdiction to even hear the State’s appeal. The appeal was dismissed, leaving Bertrand’s reduced 10-year prison term in place.
