Phillips v. State, 63708
| Decision Date | 13 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 63708,63708 |
| Citation | 290 S.E.2d 142,162 Ga.App. 199 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Roy David Petersen, Marietta, for appellant.
Rafe Banks, III, Dist. Atty., Cumming, for appellee.
The appellant, Terrance Phillips, was convicted on all three counts of an indictment charging him with theft, attempted theft, and entering an automobile with the intent to commit theft. A co-indictee named Jimmy Avery pled guilty to the charges and testified against him. Avery stated that he and the appellant were driving around one afternoon when they encountered two women throwing a frisbee near Buford Dam. They prevailed upon the women to allow them to participate in the game, and while the two women were chasing a particularly long throw, the appellant took a pocketbook from their car. The two men sped off, and the women gave chase until the fleeing vehicle hit a curb and flipped over. The men fled on foot but were later arrested based on information provided by an acquaintance.
The testimony of the theft victim and her companion substantially corroborated Avery's testimony. Although neither woman was able to identify the appellant at a lineup, each testified that the two men had introduced themselves as Ted and Jim. Held :
1. The charge of entering an automobile with the intent to commit a theft was based on the same entry into the automobile which resulted in the theft of the pocketbook. Since the evidence introduced to establish the latter also established the former, it follows that the former was included in the latter as a matter of fact. See generally Code Ann. § 26-505; Gunter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 176(1), 270 S.E.2d 224 (1980). Since the appellant may not be convicted of both offenses, the conviction for entering an automobile with the intent to commit a theft is accordingly reversed. See Code Ann. § 26-506(a).
2. The attempted theft charge relates to an unsuccessful attempt by Avery to remove some necklaces which the victim had placed around the antenna of her automobile so that they would not be in her way while she was throwing the frisbee. If Avery had been successful in this attempt, the resulting theft of the necklaces would have constituted part of the same transaction, and thus part of the same crime, as the theft of the pocketbook. "Where several articles are stolen at one time, there is only one larceny, whether the ownership is in one person or in different persons." Dean v. State, 9 Ga.App. 571, 71 S.E. 932 (1911). In this respect, crimes against property differ from crimes against persons, for one who, by a single act, injures more than one person may be charged with multiple offenses. See Webb v. State, 68 Ga.App. 466, 23 S.E.2d 578 (1942). See also Corson v. State, 144 Ga.App. 559(1)(c), 241 S.E.2d 454 (197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...cases are contrary because the logic of Palmer and Childs, if sound, should apply as well to the theft cases. See also, Phillips v. State, 162 Ga.App. 199 (1982), where this court holds that a person may not be convicted of Entering an Automobile with Intent to Commit a Theft and the underl......
-
Ojemuyiwa v. State, A07A0347.
...674, 675(1), 475 S.E.2d 698 (1996), citing OCGA § 16-10-24(a). 13. Id. at 676(1), 475 S.E.2d 698. See generally Phillips v. State, 162 Ga.App. 199, 200(2), 290 S.E.2d 142 (1982) ("one who, by a single act, injures more than one person may be charged with multiple offenses") (citations 14. (......
-
Hopkins v. State
...stab their mother was sufficient to support convictions on two counts of first degree cruelty to children); Phillips v. State, 162 Ga.App. 199, 200(2), 290 S.E.2d 142 (1982) ("one who, by a single act, injures more than one person may be charged with multiple 18. See Denny v. State, 222 Ga.......
-
Denny v. State, A96A1467
...regardless of how many officers are involved because his arrest constituted a single transaction. Denny relies on Phillips v. State, 162 Ga.App. 199, 290 S.E.2d 142 (1982), in which the Court held that the theft of several items constituted a single larceny offense. However, the court also ......