Rowe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rowe v. State

293 S.E.2d 358, 162 Ga. App. 743, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2320

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 28, 1982

Docket64035

StatusPublished

This text of 293 S.E.2d 358 (Rowe 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

Rowe v. State, 293 S.E.2d 358, 162 Ga. App. 743, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2320 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

John P. Rowe II appeals from his conviction on three counts of burglary and one count of criminal attempt to commit burglary. We do not find that the evidence as to any of three counts for burglary was insufficient to support the guilty verdict, either because they were based solely on the fact that appellant’s fingerprints were found on the burgled premises (see Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga. App. 54 (220 SE2d 66)); or because in one instance the appellant was seen leaving the direction of one victim’s house and trying to break in another victim’s house and was finally found hiding in some bushes where stolen jewelry was also found, all of which appellant bravely contends is “mere presence at the scene of the crime.” The trial court’s charge on direct evidence was not error; nor was the admission of a previous conviction for theft by receiving which had not yet been affirmed on appeal, inasmuch as the appellant did not object thereto, and further, inasmuch as the conviction is valid until reversed on appeal and we this day affirm that prior conviction (Rowe v. State, 162 Ga. App. 742 (293 SE2d 358) (1982)).

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Judge.

John P. Rowe II appeals from his conviction on three counts of burglary and one count of criminal attempt to commit burglary. We do not find that the evidence as to any of three counts for burglary was insufficient to support the guilty verdict, either because they were based solely on the fact that appellant’s fingerprints were found on the burgled premises (see Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga. App. 54 (220 SE2d 66)); or because in one instance the appellant was seen leaving the direction of one victim’s house and trying to break in another victim’s house and was finally found hiding in some bushes where stolen jewelry was also found, all of which appellant bravely contends is “mere presence at the scene of the crime.” The trial court’s charge on direct evidence was not error; nor was the admission of a previous conviction for theft by receiving which had not yet been affirmed on appeal, inasmuch as the appellant did not object thereto, and further, inasmuch as the conviction is valid until reversed on appeal and we this day affirm that prior conviction (Rowe v. State, 162 Ga. App. 742 (293 SE2d 358) (1982)).

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.E.2d 358, 162 Ga. App. 743, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-state-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack