What did the court decide?

The Court of Appeals dismissed Cisneros’s appeal because his motion raised merger claims about convictions, which cannot be asserted in a motion to vacate a void sentence.

Who is affected by this decision?

Gustavo Cisneros is directly affected; defendants seeking to challenge convictions by claiming offenses should merge cannot use a void-sentence motion as the vehicle in Georgia.

What happens next for Cisneros?

Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Cisneros must pursue an appropriate procedure to challenge his convictions, such as a direct appeal when timely or other post-conviction remedies authorized by Georgia law.

Can this decision be appealed?

The Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; options for further review depend on Georgia procedure and whether a different type of petition or appeal is available, so Cisneros should consult counsel about possible remedies.

Gustavo Cisneros v. State

Docket A26A1793

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealDismissed

Filed: Apr 27, 2026 · 4 days ago
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: A26A1793

Appeal from denial of a motion to vacate a void sentence challenging alleged merger of convictions

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Gustavo Cisneros’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his 2026 motion to vacate a void sentence. Cisneros argued several convictions should have merged (attempt with armed robbery, sexual battery with aggravated battery, and burglary with armed robbery). The court held that merger challenges attack convictions, not sentences, and therefore are not properly raised in a motion to vacate a void sentence. Because the motion did not present a colorable void-sentence claim, the Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues Decided

Whether a motion to vacate a void sentence is a proper vehicle to raise merger claims challenging convictions
Whether the trial court’s denial of Cisneros’s motion to vacate a void sentence is appealable when the motion asserts merger of convictions

Court's Reasoning

The court applied Georgia precedent holding that merger claims challenge the validity of convictions rather than the legality of a sentence, so they are not cognizable in a motion to vacate a void sentence. Because Cisneros’s motion raised only merger claims and not a colorable void-sentence claim, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the trial court’s order. Prior cases (e.g., Nazario, Jackson, Williams) support treating merger claims as void-conviction issues rather than void-sentence issues.

Authorities Cited

Nazario v. State293 Ga. 480 (746 SE2d 109) (2013)
Jackson v. Crickmar311 Ga. 870 (860 SE2d 709) (2021)
Williams v. State287 Ga. 192 (695 SE2d 244) (2010)
Frazier v. State302 Ga. App. 346 (691 SE2d 247) (2010)

Parties

Appellant: Gustavo Cisneros
Appellee: The State
Judge: Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Key Dates

Court order date: 2026-04-27
Prior appellate decision affirmed by Georgia Supreme Court: 2016-01-01
Sentence imposed: 2018-01-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an attorney about appropriate remedy
Speak with criminal-appeals counsel to identify the correct procedure to pursue merger claims (for example, a direct appeal, state habeas, or other post-conviction relief) and review time limitations.
2
Evaluate filing a proper post-conviction petition
If merger claims challenge convictions rather than the sentence, counsel can advise whether a motion under the correct statutory vehicle or a petition for habeas relief is available and timely.
3
Consider preservation and timing issues
Confirm whether the merger claims were preserved at trial or on direct appeal, and determine any deadlines or procedural bars that could affect future challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Court of Appeals dismissed Cisneros’s appeal because his motion raised merger claims about convictions, which cannot be asserted in a motion to vacate a void sentence.
Who is affected by this decision?: Gustavo Cisneros is directly affected; defendants seeking to challenge convictions by claiming offenses should merge cannot use a void-sentence motion as the vehicle in Georgia.
What happens next for Cisneros?: Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Cisneros must pursue an appropriate procedure to challenge his convictions, such as a direct appeal when timely or other post-conviction remedies authorized by Georgia law.
Can this decision be appealed?: The Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; options for further review depend on Georgia procedure and whether a different type of petition or appeal is available, so Cisneros should consult counsel about possible remedies.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 27, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1793. GUSTAVO CISNEROS v. THE STATE.

Gustavo Cisneros was charged in a 24-count indictment for crimes arising out
a series of home invasions, and the jury found him guilty of 19 offenses, but acquitted
him of 5 of the charges. Cisneros appealed, and we found the evidence was insufficient
as to eight of the charges, but affirmed his remaining convictions. Cisneros v. State, 334
Ga. App. 659 (780 SE2d 360) (2015), aff’d, 299 Ga. 841 (792 SE2d 326) (2016).
Ultimately, Cisneros was sentenced in 2018 for five counts of burglary, four counts
of armed robbery, one count of sexual battery, and one count of criminal attempt to
commit armed robbery. In 2026, Cisneros filed a motion to vacate a void sentence,
arguing that his conviction for criminal attempt merged into armed robbery, that his
conviction for sexual battery merged into aggravated battery, and that his burglary
convictions merged into his armed robbery convictions.1 The trial court denied the
motion, and Cisneros filed this appeal. We lack jurisdiction.
A direct appeal is permitted from the denial of a motion to vacate a void
sentence if the motion raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void.
Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010). But a motion to correct
or vacate a void sentence is not an appropriate method for asserting a merger claim.
See Nazario v. State, 293 Ga. 480, 488 (2) (d) (746 SE2d 109) (2013). Rather, a merger
claim represents a challenge to a defendant’s conviction, rather than his sentence. See
Jackson v. Crickmar, 311 Ga. 870, 873 (2) (860 SE2d 709) (2021) (“merger claims are

1
Contrary to his contention, Cisneros has no conviction for aggravated battery.
a species of [a] void-conviction claim”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Because
Cisneros is not authorized to challenge his convictions in this manner, he is not
entitled to a direct appeal from the trial court’s order. Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192,
193-94 (695 SE2d 244) (2010). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/27/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.