Order

Keith Johnson, acting pro se, filed this discretionary application1 seeking review of the trial court's order entered January 5, 2017, which order stated: "Defendant has filed a motion for out of time appeal alleging that a substantive change in the law effects the validity of his sentence. However, the remedy for the alleged change in substantive law is not an out of time appeal. NOW WHEREFORE, defendant's motion for out of time appeal is hereby DENIED."

In violation of this Court's Rule 31 (e),2 Johnson has failed to include a copy of the petition or motion that led directly to the trial court's order. Based on the arguments raised in his application brief, however, Johnson appears to be claiming that the underlying indictment was void and that certain counts should have been merged for sentencing purposes.

In essence, Johnson seeks to challenge his judgment of conviction. See Jones v. State, 290 Ga.App. 490, 494 (2) (659 S.E.2d 875) (2008) (challenge to validity of indictment is challenge to conviction);Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 194 (695 S.E.2d 244) (2010) (merger argument is a challenge to conviction). See generally Rubiani v. State, 279 Ga. 299, n.1 (612 S.E.2d 798) (2005) (the substance of a motion, rather than its nomenclature, controls). But a petition or motion to vacate or modify a conviction is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 S.E.2d 150) (2010); Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 S.E.2d 786) (2009). An appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a petition or motion must be dismissed. See Williams, supra; Roberts, supra; Harper, supra at 218 (2).

Accordingly, because Johnson's collateral attack upon his judgment of conviction is not authorized, this application is hereby DISMISSED.