Phoukphanh v. State

569 S.E.2d 259, 256 Ga. App. 580, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2262, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 953
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 16, 2002
DocketA02A1500
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 569 S.E.2d 259 (Phoukphanh v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Phoukphanh v. State, 569 S.E.2d 259, 256 Ga. App. 580, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2262, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 953 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Blackburn, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, Anousone Phoukphanh appeals his convictions for the false imprisonment of Young Uhl and Angie Park, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We disagree and affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia. 1 Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, including the State’s witnesses, [are] a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve. 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 testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.

Phagan v. State. 2

In the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that, on the morning of June 12, 2000, Uhl and Park were working in the kitchen of the Good Natural Spa massage parlor. At that time, Phoukphanh entered the kitchen brandishing a gun, and he admon *581 ished Uhl and Park not to move. Phoukphanh briefly left the room, tied up a co-worker of Uhl and Park, and then returned to the kitchen. While Phoukphanh was out of the room, Uhl pressed a silent security alarm alerting police. After his return, Phoukphanh tied both Uhl’s and Park’s hands with telephone cords.

Decided July 16, 2002. James W. Bradley, for appellant. Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, for appellee.

Phoukphanh then left the kitchen once again. While he was away, Uhl fled the building and ran to her manager’s office which was nearby. The manager untied Uhl’s hands and followed her back to the massage parlor. At that time, they witnessed police entering the building. Uhl then saw two men running out of the massage parlor toward an abutting trailer park. Police subsequently caught Phoukphanh and arrested him as one of the assailants. Uhl positively identified Phoukphanh as the gunman both at the scene and during trial.

Park, the owner of the massage parlor, corroborated Uhl’s testimony. Shortly after Uhl fled the building, Park followed suit. She then took refuge with Uhl while the police entered the building. Park also positively identified Phoukphanh as the gunman who entered the kitchen that morning.

Officer Sean Hill testified that Sumruay Chermhunthud, Phoukphanh’s co-defendant, told him that he and Phoukphanh planned to rob the massage parlor earlier that day. Chermhunthud also stated that he witnessed Phoukphanh tie up Uhl and Park, and Phoukphanh then instructed him to search through the massage parlor for money.

OCGA § 16-5-41 (a) provides: “A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.” The evidence discussed above was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Phoukphanh illegally detained both Uhl and Park by tying them up and ordering them not to move.

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
1

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Garza v. State
648 S.E.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
Guzman v. State
616 S.E.2d 142 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Winston v. State
607 S.E.2d 147 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Stewart v. State
598 S.E.2d 837 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Nunnally v. State
582 S.E.2d 173 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
569 S.E.2d 259, 256 Ga. App. 580, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2262, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoukphanh-v-state-gactapp-2002.