Wells v. State
| Decision Date | 22 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. A15A2171.,A15A2171. |
| Citation | 783 S.E.2d 178,336 Ga.App. 717 |
| Parties | Adams WELLS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Haddad Law Group, Juwayn Nadim Haddad, for Appellant.
Christopher Michael Quinn, Decatur, Marlene Shari Zekser, Asst. Dist. Attys., Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., for Appellee.
Adam Wells and Jhurik Forrester were jointly tried for armed robbery, and a jury found them guilty. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Wells appeals his conviction. He contends that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike a juror for cause; and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to request a lesser included charge of theft by receiving stolen property or theft by taking stolen property. We affirm.
1. Wells contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the basis that at the end of the State's case, there was a lack of evidence implicating him in the commission of a crime, and that it was only during his co-defendant's testimony that evidence revealed Wells's involvement in the incident.
When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case, the jury's verdict will be upheld. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.) Flores v. State, 308 Ga.App. 368 –369(1), 707 S.E.2d 578 (2011). "The test established in Jackson v. Virginia,1 is the appropriate one to use when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, whether the challenge is from the denial of a directed verdict or the denial of a motion for new trial based upon alleged insufficiency of the evidence." (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) James v. State, 316 Ga.App. 406, 408(1), 730 S.E.2d 20 (2012).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence adduced by the State showed the following. Forrester responded to an ad W.G. had placed on Craigslist to sell a laptop computer. On May 29, 2012, around 6:00 p.m., the two met in the parking lot of a certain store to conduct W.G.'s sale and Forrester's purchase of the computer. For his sense of security, W.G. had placed in the driver door pocket of his vehicle a gun. Forrester was dropped off at the location; W.G. parked his vehicle, and Forrester approached.
During the transaction, after W.G. had removed the computer from its box and turned it on, he turned around and Forrester had W.G.'s gun in his hand. Forrester put the gun behind him and wielded a big "kitchen knife" at W.G., demanding W.G. to give up his computer and iPhone. W.G. relinquished the items, and they were placed in a bag. W.G. hit the alarm button on his keys, and Forrester took the bag and ran away. W.G. chased Forrester to "kind of the corner of the building," but stopped when he realized that he was unarmed and Forrester had two weapons. W.G. observed Forrester enter the passenger side of a newer model black Honda Accord vehicle. Surveillance cameras captured images of a matching vehicle arriving and leaving the parking lot around the time of the robbery. Two bystanders, a husband and wife, who had parked their vehicles near W.G.'s vehicle witnessed W.G. running after Forrester in the parking lot. The husband identified Forrester in court as the individual he had seen W.G. chasing. W.G. used another bystander's cell phone to call police and report the incident. A recording of the 911 call was played for the jury.
Through undercover investigation, the next day police detectives located the vehicle they suspected was involved in the armed robbery. At approximately 1:51 p.m., the vehicle was stopped for traffic infractions. Wells was the driver; Forrester was the passenger. The officer who initiated the stop noticed an iPhone in the center console and, knowing that an iPhone was one of the items stolen in the armed robbery the vehicle was suspected of being involved in, asked Wells for consent to search the vehicle. Wells consented. In the trunk, police recovered a "butcher" knife "just kind of laying [sic] by itself in the trunk." Police asked Wells about the knife, and Wells looked at Forrester and said "You're the one who was in my trunk." Police continued searching the trunk and located the gun that was taken from W.G.'s vehicle; the gun was wrapped in a t-shirt. Forrester consented to a search of his person. Police recovered from Forrester's person W.G.'s iPhone.
After the State rested, Forrester testified. He admitted that the knife found in the trunk was his and that it was on his person during his interaction with W.G.; but he denied having wielded the knife at W.G. Forrester testified that W.G. brandished a gun, and that he (Forrester) did "instinctively reach and disarm [W.G.] of" the gun. Forrester testified that he threw the gun in a bag and took the bag and ran away, and that W.G. chased him, wielding another gun and threatening to kill him. Wells was waiting nearby in his vehicle, and after Forrester entered, they fled. Wells and Forrester drove with no destination in mind for about 10 to 15 minutes before stopping at a gas station to search the bag. The bag contained an iPhone, a laptop computer, and a gun. Forrester testified that he placed the knife in the trunk; Wells unloaded the gun and wrapped it in a t-shirt; and later that night, he (Forrester) sold the laptop computer.
Once it is shown that goods were stolen in a robbery, absence of or unsatisfactory explanation of the possession of the goods will support a conviction for robbery based upon recent possession of the stolen goods. Whether a defendant's explanation of possession is satisfactory is a question for the jury; so is lack of explanation.
(Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Thomas v. State, 256 Ga.App. 712, 713(1), 569 S.E.2d 620 (2002).
Forrester's testimony linking Wells to the armed robbery was corroborated by evidence of W.G.'s gun being located in the vehicle Wells was driving less than 24 hours after it was reported stolen, and of W.G.'s cell phone being located on Forrester, a passenger in Wells's vehicle. Moreover, a knife consistent with the description given by W.G. as the one Forrester wielded at him during the robbery was also located in the vehicle, and the vehicle matched the description of the getaway vehicle described by W.G. and captured on surveillance camera images. The totality of the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find Wells guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of intentionally aiding and abetting Forrester in the commission of armed robbery. See Thomas, 256 Ga.App. at 713(1), 569 S.E.2d 620 (). See also James, 316 Ga.App. at 408(1), 730 S.E.2d 20 (); Smith v. State, 234 Ga.App. 586, 592 –594(7)(a), (c), 506 S.E.2d 406 (1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gatto v. City of Statesboro
... ... This principle is reiterated in OCGA 36-33-1, which pertinently provides that "it is the public policy of the State of Georgia that there is no waiver of the sovereign immunity of municipal corporations of the state and such municipal corporations shall be immune ... ...
-
Williams v. State
...on that charge rather than give the jury the option of convicting him on the lesser included offense. See Wells v. State , 336 Ga. App. 717, 722 (3), 783 S.E.2d 178 (2016) ; see also Sanchez v. State , 327 Ga. App. 500, 502 (2), 759 S.E.2d 576 (2014) ("a decision not to request a jury instr......