Emmett v. State, A91A0502
| Decision Date | 01 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A0502,A91A0502 |
| Citation | 405 S.E.2d 707,199 Ga.App. 650 |
| Parties | EMMETT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
H. Bradford Morris, Jr., Gainesville, for appellant.
C. Andrew Fuller, Dist. Atty., William M. Brownell, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Emmett and Hill were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of multiple charges. Hill's convictions were affirmed in his direct appeal. Hill v. State, 193 Ga.App. 401, 387 S.E.2d 910 (1989). Emmett's conviction is likewise affirmed.
The two men concocted a scheme for hijacking a UPS truck and using it for the robbery of a certain store. They set out in Hill's gray Lincoln Continental and followed a UPS truck driven by Terry Swindle. Emmett had disguised himself with dark-skinned make-up on his face, a wig, and sunglasses. At a delivery stop, Emmett entered the truck, pointed a .32 caliber revolver at Swindle's head, and told him to drive to a parking lot. There he instructed Swindle to get into the back of the truck and bound him with tape and an eye covering.
Emmett then drove the truck to the store, with Hill following in the car. Emmett went into the store and inquired about the purchase of a Cabbage Patch doll. He lost his nerve and left, stating he would return and make the purchase. Several hours later, he went back in the truck, and Hill followed in his Lincoln. Emmett entered the store and brandished the revolver. The store owner ran out the front door and yelled for help. Emmett fled and jumped into the Lincoln as Hill drove away.
They were apprehended by the police, who had been given a description of the car. Make-up, make-up remover, wig, sunglasses, and revolver were found in the car.
The two men were jointly indicted for the armed robbery of the UPS truck, the kidnapping of Swindle, false imprisonment of Swindle, aggravated assault upon Swindle, aggravated assault upon the store owner, and theft by taking the truck. Emmett was also charged with attempted armed robbery of the store, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
He was convicted of or pled guilty to all charges. After merging some of the offenses, the court entered final judgments for armed robbery of the UPS truck (OCGA § 16-8-41(a)), the kidnapping of Swindle (OCGA § 16-5-40(a)), the attempted armed robbery of the store (OCGA § 16-4-1), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (OCGA § 16-11-131(b)).
1. Emmett enumerates as error the failure to direct a verdict for him on armed robbery, because he never intended to steal the UPS truck or any of its contents; he only used the truck during the store robbery and then abandoned it, with Swindle having been in the back of the truck at all times; he never intended to permanently deprive Swindle of the truck's possession.
"A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon...." OCGA § 16-8-41(a).
The argument is that there was no evidence of intent to commit theft and none of taking. The law is otherwise applicable to the evidence adduced. Henson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 868, 869(1), 222 S.E.2d 685 (1975). Bramblett v. State, 191 Ga.App. 238, 239(1), 381 S.E.2d 530 (1989). James, supra 232 Ga. at 835, 209 S.E.2d 176. "[R]egardless of whether appellant intended to take the [truck] and withhold it permanently, his intent to take it for his own temporary use without the owner's authorization evinces an intent to commit a theft." Smith v. State, 172 Ga.App. 356, 357(2), 323 S.E.2d 257 (1984). Cf. Miller v. State, 174 Ga.App. 42, 44(5), 329 S.E.2d 252 (1985).
2. Appellant contends that it was error to fail to charge the jury on robbery by intimidation and theft by taking as lesser included offenses of armed robbery, even though he did not request such. Omitting a charge on lesser included offenses is not error in the absence of a written request. State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2, 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976).
In addition, the court gave appellant an opportunity to make objections to the jury instructions after they were given. He neither raised this objection nor reserved his right to do so on motion for new trial or appeal, thereby waiving it. Wadley v. State, 257 Ga. 280, 281(2), 357 S.E.2d 588 (1987).
3. Appellant contends that his conviction of armed robbery is a lesser included offense of kidnapping, requiring a merger of the former into the latter. OCGA § 16-1-7.
Armed robbery and kidnapping are clearly not included offenses as a matter of law. Chambley v. State, 163 Ga.App. 502, 504(2), 295 S.E.2d 166 (1982).
Nor are they included offenses as a matter of fact in this case. The indictment alleged that appellant committed kidnapping by abducting Swindle and that he committed armed robbery by taking the truck from Swindle. Kidnapping was complete upon appellant's pointing the gun at Swindle's head and forcing him to drive the truck away; armed robbery occurred upon appellant's tying Swindle up and assuming control of the truck, using the gun to acquire and maintain superiority. Under the indictment and evidence, these two offenses were based on separate acts. See Gaither v. Cannida, 258 Ga. 557, 558(1), 372 S.E.2d 429 (1988); Chambley v. State, supra; accord Bailey v. State, 146 Ga.App. 774(2), 247 S.E.2d 588 (1978); compare Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 148(4), 344 S.E.2d 639 (1986).
4. Appellant complains of the trial court's allowing co-defendant Hill to attempt to impeach appellant, who implicated Hill, through proof of: (1) prior criminal convictions of burglary, and (2) pending drug charges, the latter having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overton v. State
...to establish a denial of due process. Barnett v. State, 204 Ga.App. 491, 495(2)(b), 420 S.E.2d 43 (1992); Emmett v. State, 199 Ga.App. 650, 652(4), 405 S.E.2d 707 (1991). They have not done so. Because each defendant was charged with the RICO violation, all of the evidence, including the ev......
-
Barnett v. State
...chance of acquittal. (Cit.) He must make a clear showing of prejudice and a consequent denial of due process.' " Emmett v. State, 199 Ga.App. 650, 652(4), 405 S.E.2d 707. The record does not support a finding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to 3. Appellant a......
-
Watkins v. State
...sufficient to support appellant Lewis' conviction for theft by receiving stolen property (OCGA § 16-8-7(a)). Cf. Emmett v. State, 199 Ga.App. 650, 405 S.E.2d 707 (driver bound, placed in back of hijacked truck, truck used during attempted armed robbery and abandoned; accused's intent to tak......
-
Hayes v. State
...to establish a denial of due process. Barnett v. State, 204 Ga.App. 491, 495(2)(b), 420 S.E.2d 43 ( 1992); Emmett v. State, 199 Ga.App. 650, 652(4), 405 S.E.2d 707 (1991). A trial court must consider the following factors in exercising its discretion on a motion to sever: (1) whether the nu......