Deanthony Murphy v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: August 17, 2015
• Docket: A15A0772
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIRST DIVISION DOYLE, C. J., PHIPPS, P. J., and BOGGS, J.

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. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

August 17, 2015

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A15A0772. MURPHY v. THE STATE.

BOGGS, Judge.

A jury found DeAnthony Murphy guilty of armed robbery and possession of

a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced Murphy to ten

years for armed robbery and five years concurrently for possession of a firearm during

the commission of a felony. Murphy then filed a motion for new trial asserting that

the verdict was without evidence to support it. This motion was denied by the trial

court. Murphy now appeals, asserting that the evidence is insufficient for a rational

trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding no error, we affirm.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,

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. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime charged, the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

(Citations and footnote omitted; emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

So viewed, the evidence shows that on August 21, 2010, Murphy approached

the victim in Underground Atlanta and began asking the victim about his jewelry and

where he worked. After walking a short distance with the victim, Murphy pulled out

a gun and robbed him with the aid of an accomplice. The victim then gave Murphy

and the accomplice his belongings, which included $200, two jewelry chains, and a

cell phone. After sitting in a state of shock for a moment, the victim began to pursue

Murphy on foot while shouting that he had been robbed. The victim chose to chase

Murphy rather than the accomplice because the victim assumed his belongings were

stashed in the book bag Murphy was carrying.

The victim tackled Murphy and retrieved the bag. The bag did not contain the

victim’s belongings, but did contain the gun Murphy used in the commission of the

2 robbery along with various other items. The victim grabbed the gun as a security

guard approached calling for assistance. Murphy was apprehended and the victim

turned over to police the handgun he had retrieved from Murphy’s bag.

Murphy asserts that the evidence presented is insufficient for conviction of

armed robbery or possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. We

disagree. A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit

theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence

of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the

appearance of such weapon. OCGA § 16-8-41(a). To commit the offense of

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, a person must have had

a firearm within arm’s reach during the commission of the felony. OCGA § 16-11-

106(b).

To support the elements of these offenses, the evidence presented at trial

included the victim’s testimony and the testimony of a security guard and a bystander,

both of who observed the victim chasing Murphy. The handgun retrieved from

Murphy’s book bag was also admitted into evidence. Despite this evidence, Murphy

asserts that the evidence is insufficient because there were no independent

eyewitnesses or forensic evidence, video surveillance footage was available at

3 Underground Atlanta but never viewed, and the lead detective was absent from the

trial.

While Murphy points to evidence that was not admitted, the State was

nonetheless able to meet its burden of proof. None of the other witnesses besides the

victim saw the robbery in progress, but “the testimony of a single witness is generally

sufficient to establish a fact.” OCGA § 24-14-8. If that single witness is an

accomplice to a crime, further circumstantial evidence may be required. Here,

however, the victim of the crime testified and identified Murphy as the man who

robbed him. Furthermore, the testimony of the security guard and the bystander align

with the victim’s account of the robbery. The victim was also able to identify the

handgun at trial. This evidence is sufficient to lead a rational juror to conclude

beyond a reasonable doubt that Murphy robbed the victim with a firearm.

Murphy also emphasizes minor conflicts in the details of the witnesses’

testimony and the victim’s police reports. The testimony of the victim and the

bystander conflict on how the gun in question was dropped. And the victim’s police

reports conflict on whether the accomplice placed the victim’s belongings in

Murphy’s bag or if he held on to the items and ran off. However, these minor details

do not invalidate Murphy’s conviction.

4 It is the duty of the jury, not this Court, to resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. 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.

(Citation omitted.) Lopez-Vasquez v. State, 331 Ga. App. 570, 570 (1) (771 SE2d

218) (2015).

With the combined testimony of the witnesses at trial, the State has met its

burden of proof and provided sufficient evidence to support the charges of armed

robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Judgment affirmed. Doyle, C. J. and Phipps, P. J., concur.