Cade v. State
| Decision Date | 08 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. A03A1573.,A03A1573. |
| Citation | 262 Ga. App. 206,585 S.E.2d 172 |
| Parties | CADE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John R. Greco, Atlanta, for appellant.
Patrick H. Head, Dist. Atty., Andrew J. Saliba, Amelia G. Pray, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Toxi E. Cade is currently charged with the offense of forgery in the first degree (four counts) in Cobb County. Cade appeals from the denial of her plea in bar of double jeopardy contending that the Cobb County prosecution is barred by her previous guilty plea in Fulton County to theft by taking, which arose from the same facts. We find that the Cobb County prosecution is not barred by double jeopardy and affirm.
From the record, we are able to ascertain the following facts. Cade was employed by the offices of the Department of Medical Benefits through the State of Georgia in Atlanta, Fulton County. In her employment, Cade was responsible for a holding account set up to reimburse medical providers and individuals for monies spent on Medicaid and insurance claims. Specifically, medical bills were paid by the Department of Medical Assistance, and the department was reimbursed by the insurance companies. Cade was responsible for writing refund checks to medical providers and to individuals for third-party liability refunds. After writing each check, Cade would submit it to one of several supervisors for approval.
During an audit of the account, it was found that checks had been written by Cade for which there was no underlying documentation. Upon request, Cade was unable to provide documentation to validate such checks, and an investigation ensued which resulted in an arrest warrant being issued against her in Fulton County for theft by taking. The affidavit upon which the arrest warrant was based alleged that between March 8, 1993, and July 28, 1994, Cade had unlawfully appropriated in excess of $80,000 of State of Georgia funds by writing twenty-five fraudulent checks, each of which exceeded $500, to three co-conspirators. The affidavit further alleged that each of the checks was written in Fulton County. On January 24, 1995, Cade was indicted in Fulton County for theft by taking $80,000 in money from the State of Georgia Department of Medical Assistance. Cade entered a guilty plea on this indictment on February 14, 1997,1 and received one year to serve, commuted to time served.
On March 30, 1995, Cade and her sister Nona Vania Cade were indicted in Cobb County for four counts of forgery in the first degree for State of Georgia Department of Medical Benefits check numbers 3665, 3676, 3802, and 4065, in the amounts of $3,521.69, $3,965.21, $4,825.34, and $3,811.11, respectively.2 Each of four identified checks was cashed in Cobb County. On November 4, 1999, Cade and Nona Vania Cade were reindicted in Cobb County for the same offenses. The November 4, 1999 indictment included an additional charge of theft by taking against Cade's husband, John Henry Cade, for a separate check on the same account. Held: 1. Cade argues that the Cobb County indictment for forgery in the first degree violates OCGA § 16-1-8(b)(1). We disagree.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cates v. State, 206 Ga.App. 694, 695-696, 426 S.E.2d 576 (1992).
(a) There is no bar under subparts (i) and (ii) because the charged offenses of forgery in the first degree were not completed until Cade uttered and delivered the four checks in Cobb County. See Hudson v. State, 188 Ga.App. 684, 689(2), 374 S.E.2d 212 (1988) (). Thus, Cade could not have been charged with and prosecuted in Fulton County for these offenses. Venue for the forgery in the first degree charges lies in Cobb County, where the checks were uttered. See Howard v. State, 181 Ga.App. 187, 193, 351 S.E.2d 550 (1986) (Beasley, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ().
Further, as venue for the forgery in the first degree offenses and theft by taking offense is in separate counties, OCGA § 16-1-7(b), prohibiting multiple prosecutions for crimes arising from the same conduct which are known to the proper prosecutor and are within the jurisdiction of a single court, would not bar Cade's trial on the forgery in the first degree charges.
(b) Additionally, there is no bar under subpart (iii) in that the Cobb County prosecution of Cade for forgery in the first degree and the Fulton County prosecution for theft by taking each requires proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...the writing is uttered or delivered, and venue lies in the county in which the unauthorized writing was uttered. Cade v. State, 262 Ga.App. 206(1)(a), 585 S.E.2d 172 (2003). In the case before us, the bank employee to whom the forged check was presented for payment did not testify that the ......
-
Townsend v. State
...606 (2007). Here, forgery and theft by taking each requires proof of a fact that the other does not. See Cade v. State , 262 Ga. App. 206, 208 (1) (b), 585 S.E.2d 172 (2003) ; cf. Branan , 285 Ga. App. at 720-721 (2) (b), 647 S.E.2d 606 (theft by taking and securities fraud did not merge be......
- JOJO PARTNERS v. Abrams Properties, No. A03A1593.
- Roddy v. Tanner Medical Center, Inc.
-
Labor and Employment - W. Melvin Haas, Iii, William M. Clifton, Iii, and W. Jonathan Martin, Ii
...913, 917 (1998)). 82. Id. 83. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-9-2(c)(9). 84. JOJA Partners, 262 Ga. App. at 212, 585 S.E.2d at 171-72. 85. Id. at 213, 585 S.E.2d at 172. 86. Under O.C.G.A. section 34-7-20, "[t]he employer is bound to exercise ordinary care in the selection of employees and not to retain th......