James Edward Sanders v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: September 25, 2013
• Docket: A13A0841
• Status: Published

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, 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. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

September 25, 2013

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0841. SANDERS v. THE STATE.

MILLER, Judge.

Convicted by a jury of armed robbery (OCGA § 16-8-41 (a)) and possession

of a knife during the commission of a felony (OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1)), James

Edward Sanders appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that

the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the verdict of guilt, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies. As an appellate court, we do not weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in trial testimony when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged. Instead, we determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each necessary element of the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bryson v. State, 316 Ga. App. 512 (729 SE2d

631) (2012).

So viewed, the evidence shows that on February 24, 2010, the victim received

a text message from Sanders that he had some Oxycontin pills to sell the victim. The

victim called Sanders, and they made arrangements to meet at an apartment complex

in Duluth where Sanders resided. The victim later went to the designated area and

waited in his vehicle for Sanders to arrive. When Sanders appeared, he hopped into

the passenger seat of the victim’s vehicle. Sanders and the victim briefly chatted

before Sanders pulled out a knife with a blade three to five inches in length. Sanders

demanded the victim’s money and ordered the victim to clear out his pockets. Sanders

took $180 in cash, cell phones, and a GPS unit. Before getting out of the victim’s van,

Sanders threatened to find and hurt the victim if he reported the incident to the police.

Sanders fled and was seen running to an area where apartment number 2612 was

located. The victim then called the police, stating that he had been robbed while

pulling into the apartment complex to make a phone call.

Responding police officers talked to the victim and to residents of the

apartment complex. Based on the information provided, the officers went to

2 apartment number 2612 and found Sanders. The victim subsequently identified

Sanders as the assailant. Upon further questioning, the victim admitted that he was

actually at the apartment complex to buy narcotics from Sanders.

The police officers obtained a warrant to search Sander’s apartment, and while

executing the search warrant, officers found the GPS unit and cell phones that were

taken from the victim. Officers also found a butterfly knife and approximately $1,832

in cash. Sanders was arrested, charged, and convicted of armed robbery and

possession of a knife during the commission of a felony.

On appeal, Sanders contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his

convictions because the victim was not credible, Sanders testified that the victim

willingly gave him property in exchange for narcotics, and the knife recovered from

his apartment did not match the victim’s description of the knife used in the offense.

We disagree.

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

theft, he . . . 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). A person commits the offense of

possession of a knife during the commission of a felony when he has on or within

3 arm’s reach of his person a knife having a blade three inches or longer during an

armed robbery. See OCGA § 16–11–106 (b) (1). Where a robbery is committed by

the use of a knife, separate convictions for armed robbery and possession of a knife

are specifically authorized. See OCGA § 16-11-106 (e); see also Howze v. State, 201

Ga. App. 96, 97 (410 SE2d 323) (1991) (noting that separate convictions for armed

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

separate convictions under OCGA § 16-11-106 (e)).

It is the role of the jury, as the finders of fact, to determine the credibility of

witnesses. Whitaker v. State, 291 Ga. 139, 140 (1) (728 SE2d 209) (2012). In this

case, the jury found the victim and his description of the events to be credible when

it found Sanders guilty of the charged offenses. In his trial testimony, the victim

identified Sanders as the person who used a knife with a blade three to five inches

long in order to take his money and other property. The victim’s testimony alone was

sufficient to support a finding that Sanders committed armed robbery and used a knife

during the commission of a felony. See OCGA § 24-4-8 (2012) (“The testimony of

a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.”)1; see also Harrelson v.

1 This provision has been retained but renumbered as OCGA § 24-14-8 in Georgia’s new Evidence Code.

4 State, 312 Ga. App. 710, 715-716 (1) (b), (d) (719 SE2d 569) (2011) (victim’s

testimony was sufficient to sustain convictions for armed robbery and possession of

a knife during the commission of a crime). Although Sanders offered testimony that

conflicted with the State’s version of events,

[i]t is the role of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the resolution of such conflicts adversely to the defendant does not render the evidence insufficient.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Whitaker, supra, 291 Ga. at 140 (1). Likewise, it

was the function of the jury, and not this Court, to resolve conflicts in the evidence

regarding the victim’s description of the knife and the type of knife recovered from

Sanders’s apartment, Id. “So long as there is some competent evidence, even though

contradicted, to support each element of the crime, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.”

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 293 Ga. App. 218, 219 (666 SE2d

738) (2008). Since competent evidence showed that Sanders used a knife during the

commission of an armed robbery, his convictions are affirmed.

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