Bradford v. State
327 Ga. App. 621
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bradford, tried by bench, was convicted of three armed robberies, three knife-during-crime counts, and one obstruction count.
- On appeal, Bradford challenged sufficiency of the armed robbery evidence and trial counsel’s failure to demur to the indictment.
- The evidence showed Bradford and co-defendant Davey, armed with a meat cleaver, robbed a gift shop and took cash from victims in the shop.
- The jury (bench) found Bradford responsible for Counts 1-3; Count 3 implicated Jriyporn, but the State faced evidentiary hurdles regarding property ownership/possession.
- The appellate court affirmed two armed robbery convictions, vacated the Count 3 armed robbery conviction, and remanded for consideration of lesser included offenses; judgment on the other counts remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Counts 1-3 for armed robbery | Bradford contends no offensive weapon was used for Counts 1-2; insufficient as to Count 3 | State’s evidence fails to show taking from Jriyporn's person/immediate presence | Counts 1-2 upheld; Count 3 vacated due to lack of taking from Jriyporn |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to demur | Bradford argues counsel should have demurred to the armed robbery counts as improperly pled | Demurrer would be meritless; indictment sufficient | No deficient performance; conviction affirmed as to sufficiency; demurrer not required |
| Indictment sufficiency to withstand general demurrer | Armed robbery indictment alleged taking from immediate presence with a knife | Indictment sufficient to put Bradford on notice; demurrer would fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Camero v. State, 257 Ga. App. 109 (Ga. App. 2002) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; appellate review limited to Jackson v. Virginia analysis)
- Gutierrez v. State, 290 Ga. 643 (Ga. 2012) (taking from presence requires taking of property from person or immediate presence)
- Smith v. State, 244 Ga. App. 165 (Ga. App. 2000) (clarifies presence and property taking concepts in armed robbery)
- Watson v. State, 239 Ga. App. 482 (Ga. App. 1999) (presence/possession principles in robbery cases)
- Mathis v. State, 238 Ga. App. 218 (Ga. App. 1999) (definition of property taken from presence; possession concept)
- Jennings v. State, 292 Ga. App. 149 (Ga. App. 2008) (armed robbery can extend to multiple victims; immediate presence interpretation)
- Harp v. State, 302 Ga. App. 17 (Ga. App. 2010) (requires possessory interest for some cases; distinguishable facts)
- Ward v. State, 304 Ga. App. 517 (Ga. App. 2010) (presence/ownership nuances in multi-victim robberies)
- Avila v. State, 322 Ga. App. 225 (Ga. App. 2014) (multiple victims; property taken from premises; possession theories)
- Thompson v. State, 320 Ga. App. 150 (Ga. App. 2013) (single armed robbery conviction despite multiple victims)
- Taylor v. State, 318 Ga. App. 115 (Ga. App. 2012) (single armed robbery conviction with multiple persons present)
- Jones v. State, 302 Ga. App. 147 (Ga. App. 2010) (single armed robbery conviction where multiple employees present)