NAHMIAS, Justice.

Benny Kimbrough appeals the trial court’s order denying his 2015 motion to vacate as void his sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, which was imposed under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) for a murder he committed in 2004 after being convicted of kidnapping in Florida in 1994. We affirm.

subsection did not authorize Funderburk’s sentence.^[2] On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Funderburk’s murder conviction but vacated his sentence of life without parole and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to enter a legal sentence. See Funderburk, 276 Ga. at 556 (2). See also Miller v. State, 283 Ga. 412, 417 (5) & n. 15 (658 SE2d 765) (2008).

Kimbrough, however, was sentenced as a recidivist under OCGA § 17-10-

7 (b), addressing second-time offenders for “serious violent felon[ies],” not OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) like Funderburk. When Kimbrough murdered Demba in July 2004, OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) authorized a sentence of life without parole for “a serious violent felony” like murder if the defendant previously had been convicted in Georgia of a “serious violent felony” or had “been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States of a crime which if committed in this state would be a serious violent felony.”3 Kimbrough does not dispute that his 1994 kidnapping conviction in Florida was for a crime that if committed in Georgia would be a serious violent felony.^[4] OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) begins with the phrase “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in subsection (b),” and we explained in Funderburk that statutory provisions other than OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) authorized a sentence of life without parole for murder, including specifically OCGA § 17-10-7 (b):

Although a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole may be imposed for murder, either as a recidivist sentence under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) (2), which requires that the defendant be previously convicted of a serious violent felony (see OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (a)), or as an alternative sentence when the death penalty is sought (see [former] OCGA § 17-10-31.1), neither of those circumstances is present in this case.

Funderburk, 276 Ga. at 555 (2) n. 2. See also Henry v. State, 279 Ga. 615, 618 (6) (619 SE2d 609) (2005) (holding, with a “compare” citation of Funderburk, that “OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) authorized the trial court to impose life imprisonment without parole for [a 1997] murder, so long as [the defendant] was previously convicted of a ‘serious violent felony’ as defined in OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (a)”).

We conclude from a consideration of the Act [Ga. L. 1993, p. 1654] as a whole that the Legislature intended the sentence of life without parole be considered and imposed only when seeking the death penalty. This conclusion is further reinforced by Section 9 of the Act, which expressly provides that “[n]o person shall be sentenced to life without parole unless such person could have received the death penalty under the laws of this state. . . .” The unavoidable result of the legislative enactment is to bar the State from seeking life without parole unless the State has filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Id. at 326 (6). In Johnson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 341 (634 SE2d 134) (2006), the Court of Appeals said:

Johnson contends the trial court erred by sentencing him to serve a life sentence without parole because the Supreme Court of Georgia held in [Ingram] that a life sentence without parole was authorized only in cases in which the State first sought the death penalty. We must agree. Id. at 346. In Williams v. State, 291 Ga. 19 (727 SE2d 95) (2012), this Court said, citing Ingram:

Prior to April 29, 2009, a person who was convicted of murder could either be sentenced to death or life in prison with the possibility of parole. Life sentences without the possibility of parole were only imposed in those cases in which the State sought the death penalty. Id. at 20 (1). And in Moore v. State, 293 Ga. 705 (749 SE2d 660) (2013), again relying on Ingram, we said: It is clear from the language of [Ga. L. 1993, p. 1654] that in 2001 the State could seek a sentence of life without the possibility of parole only in those cases where the State could, consistent with state and federal laws, impose a sentence of death. Id. at 707.

However, in Ortiz v. State, 266 Ga. 752 (470 SE2d 874) (1996), which was decided just a few months after Ingram, this Court upheld a recidivist sentence of life without parole under what is now OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) in a case where the charges did not even allow the State to seek the death penalty, in the course of rejecting several constitutional challenges to the statute. See Ortiz, 266 Ga. at 753-754 (2) (a). Then in Funderburk, as mentioned earlier, we specifically noted that a life without parole sentence could be imposed for murder “either as a recidivist sentence under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) (2) . . . or as an alternative sentence when the death penalty is sought.” Funderburk, 276 Ga. at 555 (2) n. 2 (emphasis added).

Finally, in State v. Velazquez, 283 Ga. 206 (657 SE2d 838) (2008), we directly rejected reliance on Ingram for the proposition that “a sentence of life without parole is authorized ‘only in cases in which the State first sought the death penalty.’” Id. at 207 (citation omitted). We explained that “[i]t is . . . the statutory scheme created by the General Assembly that controls . . . , not simply language in this Court’s opinion in Ingram.” Id. We explicitly distinguished Ingram, which did not involve recidivist sentencing, from Ortiz, which “arose under the provisions of OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) (2), which specifically deals with certain recidivist offenders,” emphasizing that “the situation in each case is governed by specific statutes.” Velazquez, 283 Ga. at 209 n. 3. See also Redden v. State, 294 Ga. App. 879, 881 (2) (670 SE2d 552) (2008) (“Ingram held that under the statutory scheme created by OCGA §§ 17-10-16 (a), 17-10- 30.1, 17-10-31.1, and 17-10-32.1, the legislature intended the sentence of life without parole to be considered and imposed only when the state is seeking the death penalty. Clearly, the holding in Ingram did not impact OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) (2).”).

The clear language of OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) required Kimbrough to be sentenced to life without parole for his conviction of the July 2004 murder in light of his prior kidnapping conviction. Nothing this Court has said in cases not involving recidivist sentencing renders Kimbrough’s sentence erroneous, much less void.^[6] Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to correct his sentence.^[7]

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Decided February 6, 2017. Murder. Clayton Superior Court. Before Judge Carter. Benny Earl Kimbrough, pro se. Tracy Graham Lawson, District Attorney, Elizabeth A. Baker, Assistant District Attorney; Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.