Vick v. State

Decision Date26 January 1994
Docket NumberNo. A93A1948,A93A1948
Citation211 Ga.App. 735,440 S.E.2d 508
PartiesVICK v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Lanser, Levinson & Paul, Christopher G. Paul, Cartersville, for appellant.

T. Joseph Campbell, Dist. Atty., Mickey R. Thacker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

David Allen Vick, Brandon Cole Hobbs, and Shannon Douglas Leonard were indicted by the Bartow County grand jury on November 1, 1991 on one count of armed robbery. OCGA § 16-8-41(a). Because of a name defect in the indictment, the three were reindicted on February 4, 1993. Vick's companions pled guilty and were called as witnesses by the State, and Vick was convicted. A motion for new trial was made and denied, and he appeals.

1. Vick enumerates as error the general grounds on the overruling of his motion for new trial. On appeal, the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), applies. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Gazaway v. State, 207 Ga.App. 641, 642(1), 428 S.E.2d 659 (1993), the evidence showed that Vick and his two companions escaped from the Gilmer County jail in the early morning hours of December 4, 1990 and embarked on a twenty-four hour, three-county crime spree during which they stole a vehicle, firearms, jewelry, clothes, and money to continue their escape and to obtain alcohol and drugs. By nightfall of the same day, the three discussed committing an armed robbery to get more money. They decided to rob the service station owned by Leonard's brother-in-law and determined that Hobbs would enter the store with the stolen shotgun while Leonard and Vick remained in the stolen truck. Vick was present in the truck while Hobbs entered the service station and robbed the owner of over $500. There was evidence that Vick threatened Leonard when he became afraid and attempted to leave the truck. Shortly thereafter, their stolen truck was pulled over by officers of the Kennesaw police department. Vick's companions were arrested, while Vick fled the scene and was captured about an hour later.

Vick complains that the elements of armed robbery were not proved as to him, both because he did not actively participate as either the driver or the gunman and because he was too intoxicated to appreciate what had occurred until after the robbery was complete. While mere presence at the scene of a crime does not support a conviction, " ' "presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred." ' [Cit.]" Kimbro v. State, 152 Ga.App. 893, 894, 264 S.E.2d 327 (1980). There was evidence that Vick shared in the proceeds of the various crimes perpetrated by the trio, including those of the robbery, that he participated in planning the armed robbery, and that he was sufficiently sober both to discuss those plans and to elude the police for almost an hour after his companions' arrest. While there was conflicting evidence on some of these issues, "[i]t is the function of the jury, not the appellate court, to resolve conflicts in the testimony and determine the credibility of the witnesses. [Cits.]" Williams v. State, 195 Ga.App. 422, 423(1), 394 S.E.2d 112 (1990). A rational trier of fact could reasonably find that Vick was guilty of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia.

2. Vick complains of the admission of evidence of his escape from the Gilmer County jail. However, the escape and ensuing crime spree are part of the res gestae of the offense under consideration here. All the events that took place during the 24-hour escape were interconnected, a "continuous action," as the trial court characterized it, springing out of the trio's escape and the need to finance it. "It is well settled in this state that acts are pertinent as a part of the res gestae if they are done pending the hostile enterprise, and if they bear upon it, are performed whilst it is in continuous progress to its catastrophe, and are of a nature to promote or obstruct, advance or retard it, or to evince essential motive or purpose in reference to it. One of the exceptions to the rule that on prosecution for a particular crime evidence which tends to show that the defendant committed another crime wholly independent from that for which he is on trial is irrelevant and inadmissible, is where the other crime is a part of the res gestae. Therefore, a trial judge's determination that evidence offered as part of the res gestae is sufficiently informative and reliable as to warrant being considered by the jury will not be disturbed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous." (Citations and punctuation omitted) Sypho v. State, 175 Ga.App. 833, 835(3), 334 S.E.2d 878 (1985). The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Vick's escape from jail.

3. Vick also enumerates as error the trial court's failure to grant his motion to dismiss because the State failed to afford him a speedy trial. Vick was arrested on December 5, 1990. He was originally indicted on November 1, 1991 and reindicted on February 4, 1993. The trial took place on March 29 and 30, 1993.

Vick acknowledges that his preindictment, pro se motion for a "fast and speedy" trial did not comply with the requirements for a statutory demand under OCGA § 17-7-171. See Little v. State, 188 Ga.App. 410(1), 373 S.E.2d 260 (1988). We therefore need only address whether Vick's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated under the four-part standard of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), considering the length of delay, the reason for delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Baughns v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 2016
    ...893, 897(1), 592 S.E.2d 525 (2003) ; Sullivan v. State, 242 Ga.App. 839, 840 –841(3), 531 S.E.2d 367 (2000) ; Vick v. State, 211 Ga.App. 735, 737(2), 440 S.E.2d 508 (1994) ; Baird v. State, 207 Ga.App. 44, 44–45(1), 427 S.E.2d 37 (1993).2. Baughns contends that the record shows that his Dec......
  • Nairon v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 12, 1994
    ...all of the above factors, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the case. Vick v. State, 211 Ga.App. 735, 737-738, 440 S.E.2d 508 (1994). 2. Nairon contends the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of radar test results showing he was traveling 77 mph in a......
  • Cantrell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 1998
    ...determination is shown to be clearly erroneous. Sypho v. State, 175 Ga.App. 833, 835(3), 334 S.E.2d 878 (1985); Vick v. State, 211 Ga.App. 735, 737, 440 S.E.2d 508 (1994). We find no error in the trial court's res gestae 3. Finally, Cantrell contends that the May 27 robbery at the Favorite ......
  • Stange v. Cox Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 1994
    ... ... Stange has not presented clear and convincing evidence that Dickerson's numerical error or his failure to state that Stange was not a party to the civil action was made with actual malice. Cox promptly corrected the error when it was pointed out, approximately ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT