Clinton Garrett v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: August 29, 2012
• Docket: A12A1392
• Status: Published

Opinion

THIRD DIVISION MIKELL, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

August 29, 2012

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A12A1392. GARRETT v. THE STATE.

MILLER, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Clinton Dean Garrett was convicted of burglary (OCGA

§ 16-7-1 (a)).1 Garrett filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. On

appeal, Garrett contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

Discerning no error, we affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in a light most

favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to

prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III)

1 This statute was substantially amended by Ga. L. 2012, Act 709, § 3-1, which did not go into effect until July 1, 2012, after the offense occurred in this case. Thus, this case is considered under the prior version of the statute. See Ga. L. 2012, Act 709, § 9-1 (a). (B) (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Goss v. State, 305 Ga. App. 497 (699 SE2d

819) (2010). “It is solely within the purview of the factfinder to weigh conflicting

evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses.” (Footnote omitted.) Benyard v.

State, 311 Ga. App. 127 (714 SE2d 746) (2011).

So viewed, the evidence shows that the victim owned ten chicken houses

located in Franklin County, Georgia. Although the chicken houses had not been in

use since February 2009, the victim still checked on them every day to look for leaks,

listen for rats, turn on the lights, and confirm that nothing was missing. On April 12,

2010, the victim mowed the grass around the chicken houses. When the victim went

to inspect the chicken houses the next day, he noticed tracks over the freshly cut

grass, as well as an open front door to one of the chicken houses. Upon further

inspection, the victim discovered that the copper wire had been cut and removed from

the chicken house. The victim continued to inspect the other chicken houses and

discovered that the copper wire had been cut and removed from three other houses,

and that the wire had been cut, but not removed, from two other houses. The victim

estimated that a total of 60,000 feet of copper wire had been removed from his

chicken houses. The victim called the police and met with the sheriff regarding the

2 incident. Although the doors to the chicken houses were not locked, the victim had

not given anyone permission to enter the houses.

On the evening of April 16, 2010, a captain with the Franklin County Sheriff’s

Department was assigned to continue surveillance of the victim’s farm. As the captain

neared the location, he observed three people running by a vacant house. The captain

followed them on foot until he found Garrett siting in some bushes in a field that was

less than a mile from the victim’s farm. Garrett denied that he was one of the

individuals who had been running and told the captain that he had been sitting in the

bushes for the past hour because of an argument with his girlfriend. Garrett agreed

to accompany the captain to Garrett’s home and allowed the captain to search the

home for other individuals. The captain located Jason Bray, who resided in the home

along with Garrett.

Law enforcement began night-time surveillance of Garrett’s home, at which

time an officer observed buckets containing coil wiring. The officers later obtained

receipts and invoices in Garrett’s name from PayDay Recycling in Royston, Georgia

– a facility that recycles scrap metal. These records established that Garrett had been

paid five different times in April 2010 for various amounts and types of copper wire

that he brought to the facility. One of those dates specifically included the day after

3 the burglary of the victim’s chicken houses, when Garrett sold PayDay Recycling 483

pounds of copper wire.

At trial, Bray testified that he and Garrett worked together to steal copper wire

from the victim’s chicken houses.2 Bray explained that after he and Garrett collected

copper wire from the victim’s chicken houses, they would dispose of it by taking it

to PayDay Recycling. Bray further testified that Garrett also went by himself to steal

wire from the victim’s chicken houses. According to Bray, the last time both he and

Garrett had stolen wire from the victim’s chicken houses was four to five days before

the police showed up at Garrett’s home on April 16, 2010.

Garrett contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his

burglary conviction. We disagree.

OCGA § 16-7-1 (a) (2010) proscribed, in relevant part, that

[a] person commits the offense of burglary when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within . . . any building, . . . or enters or remains within any other building, . . . or any room or any part thereof.

(Punctuation omitted.) Moreover,

2 At the time of Garrett’s trial, Bray was serving time for the burglary of the victim’s chicken houses.

4 [e]very person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime. One is concerned in the commission of a crime where the person either directly commits, intentionally causes another to commit, intentionally aids or abets the commission of, or intentionally advises or otherwise encourages another to commit the crime.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sims v. State, 306 Ga. App. 68, 70 (1) (701 SE2d

534) (2010).

Despite Bray’s testimony regarding Garrett’s participation in the chicken house

burglary, Garrett contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction

because no evidence existed to corroborate Bray’s testimony. It is true that

[a] defendant may not be convicted of a felony on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, it is not required that this corroboration shall of itself be sufficient to warrant a verdict, or that the testimony of the accomplice be corroborated in every material particular. Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participator in the criminal act will be sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support a verdict. The sufficiency of the corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice to produce conviction of the defendant’s guilt is peculiarly a matter for the jury to determine. If the verdict is founded on slight evidence of corroboration connecting the defendant with the crime, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

5 (Citation omitted.) Finley v. State, 252 Ga. App. 66, 67-68 (2) (555 SE2d 523)

(2001). Moreover, “the corroboration, which may include the defendant’s conduct

before and after the crime, need only connect and identify the defendant with the

crime.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sims, supra, 306 Ga. App. at 70-71 (1).

Here, the evidence showed that Garrett was hiding in the bushes in a field near

the victim’s chicken houses; that Garrett resided with Bray; that Garrett made a sale

of copper wire to PayDay Recycling the day after the burglary; and that buckets of

coil wiring were present at Garrett’s home after the burglary. This additional evidence

more than satisfied the slight evidence requirement necessary to corroborate the

testimony of Bray. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational

jury to find Garrett guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed. Mikell, P. J., and Ray, J., concur.