See supra note 11.SeeButler v. State , 354 Ga. App. 473, 480 (4), 841 S.E.2d 162 (2020) (finding that defendant raised cognizable void sentence claim regarding use of prior convictions to impose recidivist sentence, despite defendant's failure to object in trial court, when defendant did not challenge existence or validity of his prior convictions, but instead alleged prior convictions did not constitute felonies in Georgia); Parham v. State , 342 Ga. App. 754, 756 (1) n.1, 805 S.E.2d 264 (2017) (addressing defendant's claim that the trial court erred by sentencing him under the general recidivist statute rather than the more specific recidivist statute applicable to his convictions, holding that his claim raised a "cognizable" claim that his sentence was void even though he did not object to the imposition of a recidivist sentence in the trial court). Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia set forth the proper analysis for determining "whether a[n] ... out-of-state conviction qualifies as a predicate conviction under [ OCGA § 17-10-7 (a) ]."

In reaching this conclusion, we express no opinion as to whether, in a situation where the imposition of a sentence without parole is not otherwise expressly authorized by statute, a defendant may, by failing to raise a timely objection, waive the argument that the trial court erred in imposing recidivist sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) because his prior federal or out-of-state sentences would not constitute felonies under Georgia law. See Nordahl v. State , 306 Ga. 15, 829 S.E.2d 99 (2019) (adopting formal and modified categorical approaches for determining under OCGA § 17-10-7 when a federal or out-of-state felony conviction "which if committed within this state would be a felony"); von Thomas , 293 Ga. at 573-74 (2), 748 S.E.2d 446 (discussing waiver of claims of improper recidivist sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-7 in the context of a sentence for unlawful possession of methamphetamine); Butler v. State , 354 Ga. App. 473, 480-81 (4), 841 S.E.2d 162 (2020) (applying Nordahl analysis in the first instance on appeal to recidivist sentence for violation of the Georgia Controlled Substance Act). Accordingly, because Marshall's sentences fell within the statutory range of punishment for the crimes of which he was convicted, his sentences were not void and thus Marshall was required to raise any sentencing errors in the trial court to preserve them for review on appeal.