Jones v. State
Decision Date | 09 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A98A2095.,A98A2095. |
Citation | 236 Ga. App. 330,511 S.E.2d 883 |
Parties | JONES v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jill L. Anderson, Douglasville, Lee W. Fitzpatrick, for appellant.
David McDade, District Attorney, William H. McClain, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with armed robbery, kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated assault during the holdup of a convenience store. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdicts, the evidence revealed the following:
Defendant was captured on videotape as he entered a Speedway convenience store at Lee Road and Interstate 20 in Douglas County, Georgia, at approximately 3:00 a.m. Donald William Florville, the 65-year-old cashier, was working the store alone. Defendant Defendant left with more than $400. Florville never actually saw defendant display a gun.
Deputy Timothy Bearden of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office happened to be parked across the street from this convenience store. His curiosity was aroused when defendant drove in and backed his vehicle into a parking space. so he pursued defendant's vehicle. When Deputy Bearden called in the license plate, he was advised to use caution because an armed robbery at that convenience store had just been reported and the deputy was pursuing the suspect vehicle. Defendant exited I-20 at Thornton Road When defendant drove back onto I-20, Deputy Bearden stayed behind and checked on Deputy Partin, who was injured in the crash.
Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy Damon Partin was on Thornton Road in a marked patrol vehicle when the dispatcher reported an armed robbery at the convenience store as well as Deputy Bearden's report that he was following the suspect's vehicle on the interstate going east toward Atlanta. As he got on the ramp to enter the interstate, Deputy Partin saw defendant exit at Thornton Road followed by Deputy Bearden and a uniformed officer in a marked patrol car. Deputy Partin The patrol car was not positioned as if to blockade defendant's path. "There are several lanes [at this intersection] and [Thornton Road] is six lanes wide." Defendant was in the middle lane. But Deputy Partin could not move his vehicle out of defendant's way; defendant Stunned after the impact, Deputy Partin never fired his gun.
The jury acquitted defendant of Count 2, kidnapping, but found him guilty of Count 1, armed robbery, and Counts 3 and 4, aggravated assault against the pursuing deputies. The trial court subsequently granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal involving Count 3. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied, and this appeal followed. Held:
1. The State sought to introduce 13 prior instances where defendant participated in an armed robbery. After the hearing mandated by Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3, the trial court admitted 12 instances of defendant's prior convictions for armed robbery as probative of defendant's "identity, modus operandi, bent of mind, and [as] very relevant to the issue of ... whether or not a weapon was in fact used or not." These evidentiary rulings are enumerated as error.
(a) Defendant first contends his prior convictions for armed robbery (several based on guilty pleas) were not admitted for a proper purpose. "A rote recitation of any and all permissible purposes will not suffice." Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga.App. 256, 258 (4)(a), 439 S.E.2d 510. Likewise, "[a] vague `finding' of an unspecified `proper, specific purpose' is wholly inadequate to apprise the defendant of the grounds upon which such evidence is admissible." Id. at 259, 439 S.E.2d 510. But in the case sub judice, the trial court did enunciate explicit bases for admitting defendant's prior convictions. While the trial court found multiple bases, they are neither vague nor a mere rote recitation of any and all permissible purposes.
(b) (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Cole v. State, 216 Ga.App. 68, 69(1), 70, 453 S.E.2d 495.
The trial court in this case correctly concluded that defendant's history of guilty pleas to armed robbery was substantially relevant to the appropriate limited purpose of proving modus operandi or course of conduct, specifically whether a gun was in fact used in this instance. See Hodnett v. State, 269 Ga. 115, 118(5), 498 S.E.2d 737 ( ); Haywood v. State, 256 Ga. 694, 696(2), 353 S.E.2d 184 ( ); Sport v. State, 253 Ga. 689(1), 690, 324 S.E.2d 184 ( ).
(c) The trial court's reasoning that defendant's long list of armed robbery convictions is probative of the perpetrator's identity is in error. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williamson v. State, A09A1433.
...against Cecil was later nol prossed. 9. Mangham v. State, 234 Ga.App. 567, 569(1), 507 S.E.2d 806 (1998). 10. Jones v. State, 236 Ga.App. 330, 332(1)(b), 511 S.E.2d 883 (1999) (citation and punctuation 11. Nashid v. State, 271 Ga.App. 202, 205(1), 609 S.E.2d 106 (2004); see also Nesbitt v. ......
-
Dixon v. State
...signature.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Cole v. State, 216 Ga.App. 68, 70(1), 453 S.E.2d 495 (1994). See Jones v. State, 236 Ga.App. 330, 333(1)(c), 511 S.E.2d 883 (1999). Nevertheless, even if the independent crime and the charged crime are “essentially dissimilar” in their factual ......
-
Amey v. State, A14A1803.
...she has parked her car “is not in the nature of a signature so as to be proof of the perpetrator's identity.” Jones v. State, 236 Ga.App. 330, 333(1)(c), 511 S.E.2d 883 (1999) (prior guilty pleas to armed robbery not probative of identity in subsequent robbery). See also Cole v. State, 216 ......
-
Garrett v. State
...for the appropriate purpose of showing identity, motive, intent, and common scheme and mode of operation. See Jones v. State, 236 Ga.App. 330, 332(1)(b), 511 S.E.2d 883 (1999). The court also found the State had proffered sufficient evidence as to identity, and that the previous crime was s......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...16-5-21(d) (2007). 31. Usher, 290 Ga. App. at 710-11, 659 S.E.2d at 922-23. 32. Id. at 712, 659 S.E.2d at 923 (quoting Jones v. State, 236 Ga. App. 330, 333, 511 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1999)). 33. Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Cole v. State, 216 Ga. App. 68, 70, 453 S.E.2d 495. , 497 (199......