concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur fully with the Court’s holding in Division 2 that even if the trial court’s conclusion regarding the constitutionality of former OCGA § 17-10-6 were correct, the trial court erred in vacating the three-judge Sentence Review Panel’s reduction of Widner’s sentence. Incredibly, the trial court made this decision in a proceeding to which Widner was not a party and of which she had no notice whatsoever, much less an opportunity to be heard before her lengthy prison sentence of eight years, which she had nearly completed serving, was suddenly extended by an additional seven years. The trial court’s decision not only violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, but also arose from a legal proceeding lacking the most rudimentary elements of due process of law. Accordingly, the Court is correct to reverse the trial court’s unconstitutional augmentation of Widner’s criminal sentence. In addition, I agree with the Court’s holding that double jeopardy bars the retroactive application of today’s decision striking down former OCGA § 17-10-6 to any other defendant who, like Widner, has already been granted a reduction in sentence by the Panel.
The Court’s resolution of the double jeopardy issue in Division 2 raises a serious question regarding this Court’s continuing jurisdiction to address the constitutional issue decided in Division 1. In light of the holding in Division 2, the practical effect of Division 1 is that from this day forward, the Panel will no longer be able to reduce criminal sentences. It is unclear, however, that the Court’s decision will affect a single case other than Widner’s. Last year, the General Assembly adopted legislation repealing OCGA § 17-10-6, the statute *135that created the three-judge Sentence Review Panel.1 In the same enactment, the General Assembly adopted a new statute providing for the winding up of the Panel and the disposition of all pending matters.
The new OCGA § 17-10-6.3 (a) reads as follows:
As used in this Code section, the term “three-judge panel” means the three-judge panel that was created and existed pursuant to the former provisions of Code Section 17-10-6 as it existed on June 30, 2007, which reviewed certain sentences to determine if a sentence was excessively harsh and what relief, if any, should be given.
The new statute terminated the right of Panel review for any sentence imposed after June 30, 2007, and barred transmission of new sentence review applications to the Panel on or after July 1, 2007, for any sentence imposed after that date.2 The Panel’s authority to accept applications for review terminated on September 1, 2007.3 It is true that OCGA § 17-10-6.3 (c) set an outside deadline of November 1, 2008, for the Panel to complete its review of all pending matters. However, by now, the Panel should have long ago completed its review of all cases entitled to review due to the strict timetable contained in former OCGA § 17-10-6 and the Rules for the Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel of Georgia (Panel Rules).
Former OCGA § 17-10-6 (b) required the Panel to “meet at the state capital at such times as may be required for the review of sentences, provided that all applications for review of sentences shall be heard within three months from the date on which they acre filed.” (Emphasis supplied.) In a similar vein, Rule 47 of the Panel Rules provided (and still provides) in relevant part as follows:
The Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel shall be in continuous session and shall meet at such times as may be necessary to dispose of all cases within 90 days after they are ripe for consideration____A case shall be considered ripe for consideration if the 15 days for submission of written argument have elapsed and all documents pertinent to the review of the case have been received.
*136(Emphasis supplied.)4
As noted above, the last day the Panel could accept a new sentence review application was nine months ago, on September 1, 2007. The last possible deadline for submitting written argument on an application was 15 days later, on September 16, 2007. Assuming all pertinent documents were received by the Panel by that date, the Panel should have completed its review and issued final orders in all cases in the pipeline sometime within the next 90 days. In other words, under the statutory timetable, the Panel’s last order reducing a sentence would have been issued at the very latest by December 15, 2007. Indulging the presumption of regularity,5 I would not assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the judges assigned to the Panel have shirked their statutory duty and failed to dispose of all matters eligible for review by December 15, 2007.
Given the Court’s express holding in Division 2 that it would violate double jeopardy to apply the holding in Division 1 to any of those cases, and the fact that there will be no other cases due to the General Assembly’s repeal of former OCGA § 17-10-6, it would appear to be unnecessary at this time for us to resolve the weighty constitutional issue addressed in Division 1 of the majority opinion. Consequently, I would go no further in this case than to decide the issue presented by Division 2, and I would decline the former district attorney’s invitation to issue what may well be an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a statute that the General Assembly repealed almost a year ago. The proper course would be to reverse the trial court’s ruling regarding Widner, vacate its constitutional holding invalidating former OCGA § 17-10-6, and either dismiss the appeal outright or remand the case to the trial court with direction to conduct further proceedings on whether it has now become moot due to the passage of time. Accordingly, I dissent from Division 1 of the majority opinion.
2007 Ga. Laws 595.
OCGA § 17-10-6.3 (b).
OCGA § 17-10-6.3 (c).
See Panel Rules, Rule 39 (“Applicant and district attorney shall have the right to submit only written argument relative to the sentence imposed and the harshness or justification thereof. Said argument shall be postmarked to the Panel within 15 days of the docketing date.”).
See Allen v. Thomas, 225 Ga. 650, 652 (171 SE2d 132) (1969) (“There is a legal presumption, until the contrary appears, that a public officer has regularly and properly performed his [or her] official duty.”). See also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U. S. 899, 909 (117 SC 1793, 138 LE2d 97) (1997) (“Ordinarily, we presume that public officials have properly discharged their official duties.”) (punctuation omitted).