Can the challenge of a void judgment of conviction be premature?

No question identified. : QUESNONS PLESE UTED \. Can “She cho lenge, of a UOLD & DODGMEaT OF COMLIMon eLebe Premature? CXNOZARL id LIST GE PANES AN partes Qa pear rh 4he cagNor of We case Go Whe Coven jaageCECNORAAL Lie “TABLE OF Comme AQDESNONMS PRESEN. 2 ee Lispoe PANES. 2 HE FABLE OS COKTRB ee TABLE OF AUNOLITI® CTO... 1. ee YU. OP Mos BLOW. . . 2. 2. we JOUSDENO® STATEMENT OE CASE ee ee LEASES FULSLAAGTHE WIT. 2 eS Comwonmd oo. eB CERN FLCATER OF SERACE a A IMEX OF APPETUDLCES APPBODIX "A" — Senvarny 86, tT, NMohee of Appe| Challenging We Quine t Syotaer Cou aenvary lb, torT Aeara! ot Vedutory . speedy Hie! muteon for Wi chose aa CL Hes] APee Dd) x'"g!" — february |, 2017 JUdg mento conrchen Ced@nozAgs iv. “TABLE OF ALTHOZineS UA CASES Nubba-d uv Sele, 254 Gq. GU CWS) 2 + Tolbe-t vu Joule, 246 4. S57 (zo)... LG Welhertingion v Stele, 245Ga. 1z2(om). © Este v. Geen h3S US 342044)... 2. 2 Uniled Sides} Aid Funak v ESpinac, SSF LS 260 (210): \roia vs Dowd, S6G USTIT’GsI). 2. eT Sra v Proudert Constone~ Distant-G., 454 VS F6UG82)7 Shevthun ve LS, 1971.2 Far UMRGEL ING) 2 7 Chambers v. ee, 262 GG. 200 CWA). 2 LT Comache vWade GA DAG, Zory DIDNT LEMS |TIS¥Z ... 8 Gonzale rv. Thaler, S&S US BU l(za2). 0 6 2 8 OCEASG-I4-52 0 eg SS CemnvoeAes Vz WW JHE SOPREME COVLLT CE THE LNIEPSMTES PENT ON FOR WEI OF CORNOKK Pet one respecthulls ys Hobe Vorkt of Cerhorar) {sSve to 1 Pitecs the judgmestbelao. OPISIDNYS BELOLoO The_opiaton of Nhe ni'ghest Stak Court fo revyece She merik appears 2b jn Anplivccton No. IGA4FO Cnd ty vn publiiged. | ToOUSPL_ No | The dae. on UWhith the highest Sade Court decided. YY Cafe Was Avgust LG, 2on$. A copy of Yhat dec jiun Cippears yA Application Avo. IVAYXO An exlersion, of Ameo Ae Yhe pethen tora lori dt OF Cerhorac) was gronkd Fo andl ihduding Jenvary \lo, 220 54 Apohicatan Wo. ITA 440 The juatsdichon of this Court 18 Invoked Lnde2 Ne § 1257Ca), STATEMENY OF JHE CASE On Janva, QO, ZoOrT, ANoneFKled a Prey Gad lege Wy suthiccest nohce of Ape \ challeng ine he Q@ Wane tt fownky Suge rior Gut Jer UGr~ G, 9 a rectly anprolable o-dedeny Ing her Vath Jor. Speedy Priel Moen For Uischa @ cad ccGuite L, neeb~( Conferr'ng jurisdichts ob Cou-but Appeal s of Geagig. See Nprend ix "A" COCNOKARL Qo Two ayy AFTSZ Ne hhing ot eR Rohe of Apel, on Feloroary l, 2017, He _GUsionet Covrty Supen'alout Rled ts udgment of Carrichiin Gnd Sentence. ApoB" Two days AAW Nhe Aling cb HR \UdGmetok Comrr QAd strdence, On Rebroory) 3, or, ee, & Coen Qunty” SupertaCourt Cxeculed Ye Consequently Lord Ud amen bat ComMchon cA geontere Ion Mens Fenn LonNee Jo She Custody of He Rech Dedeteost of Correchons. On Shy Sore day, Febvuas 3, 207, petrare Rled q Worrcect Apnea Challenging Yoo. ju grmenbh Cur on The Cou-bat Ameals deckeled Yo, Monice of Aopeal Aled JGnvory 80,2017 Ga Jel, 20V7, Scud qgec| louvre Case. no. AMAIGOL Qad wus es Ggned Fo judges the Cou-tot Appeals at canis. Atte obtaining GO extension ot Are 2 Ale, the . Capella’ brief, pethuree Aled her amellan Onef oon Avg UsEG, id Nowectr, Ag ush Il, 2017, She Cov tot Appeals of Geargiq Ciismarsred caste! ANTAL) alle 1 Yho.t Cook Pagush 2O17, No Gypxlleik Svet The lout ot ls chcteksl Whe Menre tAgre| led Pebroeny 5 mee July 9) 2Or7. Sead Cacee\ ure case nb. AITA2ZO86 gd. vuas ALSO eusigredt Jo judges Sareh Royk, Gyde l&. Leese, end M. YuetHe mi) /e-ot Yre_ lout Agral§ of 60-41. On Marah (208, the Cor-hot Agral J ok Geasin rendered an OPI} wn ObAreR 74 YL. ON ‘f uds maenk ub Coni (hon, CEMpiogAcr 2 . On Ma IS, 2018 , the. lout of Appeals of Feoole ehted Keon titans In both cppeal no's AITAIGO! AITAZS ©. Hower, Ye Gveimett Covnty Supra Gut OUY fed. She remithhy §iemeang from onpeal 06. AI74 256 exad on Mey 8, wie. min ales othe Qvonnett County Sepenior Court. AIIAISOL hes Ab heen Aled jr Ve Uerk' TE ce ok rt beer entered on Yheminuks of Ye Cou fer resvmahan Ff jucisdechan ot PePAMees Convrcy Coye . Heace Jo dak ores Cri mre, (ose FENGIAS PED OK Sposat RetRuneAled her Arsh Aytenh habea