Daniels v. State
Citation | 843 S.E.2d 18,355 Ga.App. 134 |
Decision Date | 06 May 2020 |
Docket Number | A20A0454 |
Parties | DANIELS v. The STATE. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Charles Hudson Cauble, Sr., Atlanta, for Appellant.
John H. Cranford, Jr., District Attorney, Robert W. Mooradian, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Marcus Daniels was charged with two counts of armed robbery at a Waffle House in Coweta County. Daniels filed a plea in bar, arguing that his prior acquittal for armed robbery of a food mart across the street from the Waffle House precluded this prosecution. The trial court denied the motion, and Daniels appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
Based on that ruling, the State presented evidence of both the Waffle House and Shell Food Mart robberies. At the conclusion of the trial, on January 25, 2018, the jury acquitted Daniels of the Shell Food Mart robbery.
On July 10, 2018, the State indicted Daniels for two counts of armed robbery at the Waffle House. Daniels filed a plea in bar, asserting that his acquittal in the Shell Food Mart case barred further prosecution for the Waffle House robbery pursuant to OCGA § 16-1-8 (b) because he should have been charged with the latter in the Shell Food Mart case pursuant to OCGA § 16-1-7 (b). Following a hearing, the trial court denied the plea in bar, concluding that the two robberies "involve different conduct[,] and the second prosecution is not barred on double jeopardy grounds."
In a single enumeration, Daniels argues that the trial court erred by denying his plea in bar. We disagree.
Here, the State concedes that prongs 2 and 3 of the analysis — that the Waffle House robbery was known to the State at the time of the Shell Food Mart prosecution, and that both cases are within the jurisdiction of a single court — have been met. Thus, the only issue on appeal is the first prong: whether the crimes arise from the same conduct. Daniels contends that the crimes do arise from the same conduct, relying heavily on the State's position in the Shell Food Mart case that the two robberies were not two separate incidents and "not just a crime spree" because they were in the same location, with the same participants, and committed in the same manner.
The robberies, though committed at nearby locations, occurred three weeks apart at different locations, against different victims. Thus, contrary to Daniels's argument, the crimes did not constitute a continuing course of conduct.6 "Moreover, the State can establish each set of offenses without proving the other."7 The fact that the State introduced evidence of the Waffle House robbery at the Shell Food Mart trial and may attempt to introduce evidence of the Shell Food Mart robbery at the Waffle House trial does not mean that the State needs to prove the unrelated Shell Food Mart robbery to establish that Daniels committed the Waffle House robbery nor that evidence of the Waffle House robbery was necessary to convict him of the Shell Food Mart robbery.8 Similarly, the trial court's prior decision to admit the evidence of the Waffle House robbery in the first trial as intrinsic evidence does not eliminate the applicable statutory requirement that the crimes must arise from the same course of conduct in order to preclude a subsequent prosecution.
The Shell Food Mart and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maxwell v. State
...of the trip to the hospital might be admissible during the felony trial does not alter this result. See, e.g., Daniels v. State , 355 Ga. App. 134, 137, 843 S.E.2d 18 (2020) (fact that State may introduce evidence of one crime at later trial of another does not mean the State needs to do so......
-
Laghaeifar v. State
...a prosecution, all three prongs must be satisfied.(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Daniels v. State , 355 Ga. App. 134, 135-136, 843 S.E.2d 18 (2020). Because Laghaeifar is unable to satisfy the first prong, we need not address prongs two and three."This [C]ourt has he......
-
Schrader v. State
...a prosecution, all three prongs must be satisfied.(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Daniels v. State , 355 Ga. App. 134, 135-136, 843 S.E.2d 18 (2020) ; see Maxwell v. State , 311 Ga. 673, 676-677 (2), 859 S.E.2d 58 (2021) (expounding upon procedural double jeopardy). "......
-
Schrader v. State
... ... OCGA § 16-1-7 (b). In order for this procedural aspect ... of double jeopardy to prohibit a prosecution, all three ... prongs must be satisfied ... (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) ... Daniels v. State, 355 Ga.App. 134, 135-136 (843 ... S.E.2d 18) (2020); see Maxwell v. State, 311 Ga ... 673, 676-677 (2) (859 S.E.2d 58) (2021) (expounding upon ... procedural double jeopardy). "The defendant bears the ... burden of proving procedural double jeopardy, and a court ... ...