Chalifoux v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A09A1807.,A09A1807. |
| Citation | 690 S.E.2d 262,302 Ga. App. 119 |
| Parties | CHALIFOUX v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Louis Chalifoux, pro se.
J. David Miller, Dist. Atty., Laura A. Wood, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Following a jury trial, Louis Chalifoux was convicted of two counts of child molestation. The trial court sentenced Chalifoux to fifteen years to serve on the first count, and fifteen years on the second count, five years to serve and ten years on probation. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Chalifoux argues on appeal that his convictions should have merged, thus rendering his sentence void. We disagree and affirm.
A person commits the crime of child molestation when he "[d]oes any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person." OCGA § 16-6-4(a)(1). Count 1 of the indictment alleged that Chalifoux molested the child victim "by touching said child's genitals with his fingers." Count 2 of the indictment alleged that Chalifoux molested the child victim "by exposing his sex organ to said child."
Under Georgia law, certain convictions merge and multiple punishment may be precluded when the same conduct establishes the commission of more than one crime. See OCGA § 16-1-7(a); Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211, 212-213, 636 S.E.2d 530 (2006). But, the rule prohibiting multiple convictions does not apply unless the same conduct of the accused establishes the commission of multiple crimes. See Waits v. State, 282 Ga. 1, 4(2), 644 S.E.2d 127 (2007); Drinkard, 281 Ga. at 212-213, 636 S.E.2d 530; Goss v. State, 289 Ga.App. 734, 738-739(3)(b), 658 S.E.2d 168 (2008). Here, Chalifoux's conviction on Count 1 was based upon his touching of the victim's genitals, whereas his conviction on Count 2 was based upon the exposure of his sex organ to the victim. Because Chalifoux's separate convictions were not premised upon the same conduct, no merger was required. See Goss, 289 Ga.App. at 738-739(3)(b), 658 S.E.2d 168; Parker v. State, 283 Ga.App. 714, 722(5), 642 S.E.2d 111 (2007); Lunsford v. State, 260 Ga.App. 818, 820-821(1), 581 S.E.2d 638 (2003).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State
...child molestation did not merge, see, e.g., Carver v. State , 331 Ga. App. 120, 122, 769 S.E.2d 722 (2015) ; Chalifoux v. State , 302 Ga. App. 119, 119-120, 690 S.E.2d 262 (2010) ; Metts v. State , 297 Ga. App. 330, 336, 677 S.E.2d 377 (2009) ; Parker v. State , 283 Ga. App. 714, 721-722, 6......
-
Louisyr v. the State.
... ... 731] punctuation omitted.) Middlebrooks v. State, 289 Ga.App. 91, 93(1), 656 S.E.2d 224 (2008). But, the rule prohibiting multiple convictions does not apply unless the same conduct of the accused establishes the commission of multiple crimes. (Punctuation omitted.) Chalifoux v. State, 302 Ga.App. 119, 119, 690 S.E.2d 262 (2010); see also Collins v. State, 277 Ga.App. 381, 382, 626 S.E.2d 513 (2006) (The key question in determining whether a merger has occurred is whether the different offenses are proven with the same facts.). Thus, if the underlying facts show that ... ...
-
Johnson v. The State
... ... The jury was further authorized to conclude that the victim's blunt force injuries were inflicted by the butt of the shotgun once Johnson became aware of its existence. It follows that the two convictions do not merge. See Chalifoux v. State, 302 Ga.App. 119, 690 S.E.2d 262 (2010); McKenzie, 302 Ga.App. at 539-540(1)(a), 691 S.E.2d 352; Goss, 289 Ga.App. at 738-739(3)(a), (b), 658 S.E.2d 168.3. Johnson further argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay related to similar transaction evidence over the objection of ... ...
-
Wright v. State
...ordered the restitution—in this case, the trial court—which retains jurisdiction over and has the authority to modify the same.5 690 S.E.2d 262 2. In light of the trial court's refusal to consider the merits of Wright's motion, we also decline to address Wright's second claim of error—that ......