Nation v. 460, 349 S. 2d 479 (1986). Duncan v. 32, 658 S. 2d 780 (2008). Sufficient evidence supported the defendant's armed robbery conviction, despite the defendant's claim that the defendant took nothing from the victim and did not point a weapon at the victim, because: (1) it was undisputed that the crime occurred; and (2) whether the defendant or the defendant's accomplice pointed the gun and took the property, the defendant could be convicted through the defendant's role as a party under O. State did not have to prove the defendant had knowledge of the weapon to be convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm during a felony, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit hijacking a motor vehicle. Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony when the evidence showed that the defendant either directly committed or was a party to the armed robberies of both victims at a rest area. In a prosecution for armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and obstruction, the defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on allegations that trial counsel was ineffective, as: (1) a jury charge on the testimony of an accomplice was not required; and (2) in light of trial counsel's cross-examination of the accomplice, the court's credibility charge, as well as the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, a leniency instruction was unnecessary. § 16-8-41(a), and one count of theft by receiving stolen property, in violation of O.
Trial court did not err when the court refused to merge the defendant's aggravated assault and armed robbery convictions because the armed robbery and aggravated assault were separate and distinct acts; the victim's testimony showed that the armed robbery was complete before the commission of the aggravated assault. Evidence that employee was in charge of the cash drawer from which money was taken while the employee stepped away briefly to alert the manager was sufficient to show a taking from the employee's "immediate presence. " Evidence was sufficient to show a theft from the immediate presence of the victims, and was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for armed robbery where the evidence showed the victims were not present when the car was stolen because the victims were forced to flee into the woods after the defendant fired shots and wounded the victim. Evidence authorizing conviction of robbery by use of offensive weapon authorizes conviction of robbery by intimidation. § 16-8-41, an armed robbery has not been perpetrated. 299, 724 S. 2d 24 (2012). Punishment of death does not invariably violate Constitution. Buice v. 415, 657 S. 2d 326 (2008). Sentence improper when beyond statutory range. Mallory v. 812, 305 S. 2d 656 (1983). Failure to give charge on burglary harmless.
§ 16-8-41(a) because although circumstantial, the evidence authorized the jury to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that the defendant engaged in the acts that constituted the crimes; even though the defendant was apprehended while wearing clothing that did not match that described by the victims, an officer familiar with the habits of bank robbers testified that bank robbers like to wear multi-layer clothing and then shed clothes after the crime. The accomplice's testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the defendant's admission that the defendant owned the shotgun that was used in the shooting, the defendant's admission that the defendant had given the shotgun to the accomplice, the testimony of a third person that the accomplice had given the third person the shotgun after the robbery, and the fact that shotgun shells found in the defendant's home matched shells taken from the clerk's body. Redwine v. 58, 623 S. 2d 485 (2005) robbery of a club. Mills v. 28, 535 S. 2d 1 (2000). Evidence was sufficient to support convictions for aggravated assault, aggravated battery, armed robbery, and kidnapping. Taking two separate sums of money from same victim, at same time, constitutes one robbery. 909, 370 S. Resentencing. Trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to exclude the in-court identification by each of the armed robbery victims because each of the victims' identification of the defendant had an independent origin; each of the victims observed the defendant face to face in full daylight and identified the defendant's photograph within days of being robbed, and the first victim identified the defendant as the victim drove by in a car. 2d 286 (2003) robbery at ATM.
§§ 24-8-803 and24-10-1003), despite the defendant's claim that the testifying witness lacked personal knowledge with regard to the circumstances or time of the creation or transmission of the same as the card itself showed that it was created and transmitted at the time of the defendant's arrest, and was handled in the gathering agency's regular and routine course of business. Under such an indictment and a guilty verdict, the trial court is required to sentence the defendant, pursuant to O. Accordingly, the evidence corroborating the accomplice's testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury's determination that the codefendants were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as parties to armed robbery, O. Merger of armed robbery and burglary charges was not required because not only are the elements and the culpable mental state required of these crimes different, but the facts which proved each crime were different. Defendant's aggravated assault convictions merged into the defendant's armed robbery convictions because there was no element of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, O. Whether aggravated assault and armed robbery are different crimes. Although the record did not reveal that the defendant was advised of the mandatory minimum sentences on the charges to which the defendant pled guilty, as contemplated by Ga. 33. Ross v. 506, 499 S. 2d 351 (1998). Armed robberies are common in our city, ranging from stranger hold-up cases to bank or store robberies to home invasions. Jury instructions did not constitute reversible error as the instructions did not require the jury to unanimously agree on the greater offense of armed robbery before reaching the lesser offense of robbery by intimidation. Trial court erred by failing to merge the defendant's convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly or offensive weapon and armed robbery convictions for sentencing purposes because hitting a victim in the head with a handgun while demanding money were not separate and distinct acts but one uninterrupted criminal transaction.
§ 16-8-41(a)) and aggravated assault (O. LeMon v. State, 290 Ga. 527, 660 S. 2d 11 (2008) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Herrera v. 432, 702 S. 2d 731 (2010). Evidence supported defendant's conviction for armed robbery as the robbery was completed as defendant approached the clerk with DVDs in hand just before the codefendant held the clerk at gunpoint; DVDs were later seen near the store where defendant and codefendant were apprehended, barefoot; police also found a handgun, a roll of red duct tape similar to the one used to restrain the clerk, and two pairs of shoes.
44 caliber weapon; a canine unit located a. Defendant's two armed robbery convictions did not merge with one another for sentencing purposes where evidence was introduced authorizing convictions on each count and the counts involved different victims and different weapons. The surveillance cameras weren't working at the time and no arrests have been made at this time. Robbery is a crime against possession and is not affected by concepts of ownership. Defendant's life sentence for armed robbery was within the statutory limits, O. As the 10-year sentence was within the limits set by O.
Gould v. State, 168 Ga. 605, 309 S. 2d 888 (1983); Brazle v. 504, 478 S. 2d 412 (1996). Alexis v. State, 313 Ga. 283, 721 S. 2d 205 (2011). Simmons v. 853, 805 S. 2d 615 (2017) of victim. Doublette v. 746, 629 S. 2d 602 (2006). Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault should have merged with the conviction for criminal attempt to commit armed robbery because those acts were predicated upon the same act, the defendant's use of a handgun to overpower and intimidate the victim for the purpose of attempting to rob the victim of the victim's belongings. Filix v. 580, 591 S. 2d 468 (2003). When the jury specifically expressed confusion about the issue of tracking dog evidence and asked that the applicable law be recharged, the trial court erred in failing to reinstruct the jury on this issue. 2d, Robbery, § 7 et seq. § 24-3-5 (see now O. Because an attempted armed robbery began when the defendant kicked down the victim's door, entered the victim's home with a firearm, and demanded that the victim give it up, and continued as the victim and a codefendant struggled outside; after the victim was able to run away, the codefendant shot the victim twice; the robbery and aggravated assault were separate offenses and did not merge.