Hall v. State

• Decision Date: 29 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. A02A0098.,A02A0098.
• Parties: HALL, v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

556 S.E.2d 166

252 Ga. App. 187

HALL, v. The STATE.

No. A02A0098.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

October 29, 2001.

Billy M. Grantham, Donalsonville, for appellant.

J. Brown Moseley, District Attorney, Ronald R. Parker, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. ELDRIDGE, Judge.

William Demetrious Hall challenges his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault (OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2)), one count of armed robbery (OCGA § 16-8-41), two counts of forgery in the first degree (OCGA § 16-9-1), and one count of possession of a firearm during commission of a crime (OCGA § 16-11-106). We affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, "`the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, on appeal this court determines evidence sufficiency, and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. [Cits.]'" Sanders v. State, 236 Ga.App. 578, 512 S.E.2d 678 (1999). To sustain the conviction, the evidence must be sufficient to authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, James v. State, 227 Ga. App. 907, 908(1), 490 S.E.2d 556 (1997), and "[t]he standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that utilized under Jackson v. Virginia, [443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ]." Thomas v. State, 249 Ga.App. 571, 549 S.E.2d 408 (2001).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Singleton v. State, 231 Ga.App. 694(1), 500 S.E.2d 411 (1998), the evidence shows that Shanta Patel and ten-year old Neila Mansure were preparing to depart a Cairo, grocery store in the early evening of October 20, 2000, when they were approached by an individual wearing a Halloween mask and brandishing a handgun. The child, the store owner's daughter, testified that the perpetrator began hitting her aunt, Patel,¹ several times in the stomach while holding the gun on her. Frightened, the child locked herself in her mother's nearby car. The perpetrator then moved to the passenger's side of the car where, at gunpoint, he ordered her out of the vehicle while at the same time attempting to get into the car using his hands. Mansure opened the car door and escaped. The perpetrator then entered the vehicle, grabbed several bags from the backseat, and ran. The store owner, Jenny Patel, testified that the perpetrator got away with $4,362 in cash, five money orders in blank, and an unspecified number of lottery reports. Other evidence introduced by the State established that a latent palm print lifted from the vehicle following the robbery by police matched a known palm print belonging to the defendant; that within several hours of the robbery the defendant had been with a woman who presented one of the stolen money orders for payment; and that the following day, the defendant successfully presented two of the stolen money orders for payment, each payable to himself in the amount of $100 and executed by a "Jack, Jr." and a "David Wright," respectively, and twice attempted to do likewise as to a third stolen money order.

In testimony given on his own behalf, the defendant denied the charges against him. However, in doing so, the defendant admitted touching the vehicle in issue, explaining that the day before the robbery he had been standing next to the vehicle as he "scratched" lottery tickets he earlier had purchased in the store. The defendant otherwise admitted having the money orders in issue, testifying that he had taken the money orders in payment for crack cocaine he sold a third party; that his girlfriend cashed one of the money orders; that he cashed one of the money orders himself; and that he attempted to cash another.

1. In two enumerations of error the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that his motion for directed verdict as to Count 2 (aggravated assault upon Shanta Patel) should have been granted. We disagree. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; see Favors v....