In his latest appeal from a 1995 negotiated plea of guilty to rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, and three counts of battery, John Rooney contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify his sentences pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-1 (f). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.

Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may correct or reduce a sentence during the year after its imposition, or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, [^[1] ] whichever is later. Once this statutory period expires, a trial court may only modify a void sentence. A sentence is void if[*386] the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. To support a motion for sentence modification filed outside the statutory time period, therefore, a defendant must affirmatively demonstrate that the sentence imposes punishment not allowed by law. Moreover, a direct appeal does not lie from the denial of such motion unless it raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void.^[2]

To the extent Rooney’s motion to modify seeks resentencing based on the merger of certain counts in the indictment as well as a change from consecutive to concurrent sentences, the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant such relief and properly denied the motion. Rooney’s motion to modify his sentence was filed on November 22,2011, over 16 years after his guilty plea and sentencing on July 10,1995. And the affirmance of his conviction occurred no later than 2001 when this Court affirmed the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal in an unpublished opinion.^[3] Thus, the 120 days for Rooney to file a motion to modify his sentence ran in 2002.^[4]

The fact that Rooney filed an appeal in 2011 from which the trial court received a remittitur on September 2, 2011, does not extend the time for filing a motion to modify his sentence because the 2011 appeal did not involve the affirmance of the judgment of his conviction as required by OCGA § 17-10-1 (f).^[5] To hold otherwise would result in the indefinite extension of time within which a trial court may modify a sentence, something not contemplated by the statute. Thus, the trial court properly denied Rooney’s motion to modify.

Rooney also argues that his conviction is void. While difficult to discern given the sparse record before us, most, if not all, of the errors enumerated by Rooney have been raised and ruled on in previous appeals.^[6] “[I]ssues previously decided by a court of competent jurisdiction are conclusive and constitute a procedural bar to relitigation.”^[7]

Further, it is Rooney’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate that the sentence imposes punishment not allowed by law. The record on appeal contains nothing more than Rooney’s pro se motions, a few letters, and the trial court’s December 5, 2011 order denying his motion to modify. Rooney argues that his conviction is void because the warrant was based on perjury, the grand jury panel was improperly constituted, his indictment was not returned in open court, and he was not advised of his right not to incriminate himself. There is no evidence or transcript in the record from which we could possibly discern the validity of these arguments. Thus, “[gjiven the record before us, [Rooney] has failed to set forth a colorable claim that his sentence is void. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of [Rooney’s] motion is not subject to a direct appeal, and we must dismiss.”^[8]

Appeal dismissed.