Holloway v. the State, 342 Ga. App. 462

Holloway was convicted of burglary and hijacking a motor vehicle; acquitted of murder and felony murder. He challenges only the hijacking conviction on appeal and also raises an ineffective-assistance claim.
At trial witnesses testified Holloway and others approached a car in a parking lot, pulled the passenger out, brandished a gun at the driver, removed and beat the driver with the gun, and then the group drove the car away. Holloway rode in the stolen vehicle but did not drive it.
A passenger identified Holloway as her cousin and testified Holloway later told her where to find the stolen car. Holloway admitted to police he was at the scene and rode in the vehicle after it was taken.
Holloway never filed a motion for new trial; he raised ineffective-assistance claims for the first time on appeal.
The Court reviewed (1) whether Holloway’s ineffective-assistance claim is procedurally barred under Glover and progeny, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence for hijacking under OCGA § 16-5-44.1(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holloway received ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Holloway contends trial counsel was ineffective and raises the claim on appeal	State argues the claim is procedurally barred because it was not raised in a motion for new trial as required by Glover	Court held the claim is procedurally barred under Glover because Holloway did not move for a new trial or raise the issue below
Whether evidence was sufficient to support hijacking conviction	Holloway argues evidence was insufficient to prove hijacking (possession of a firearm while obtaining vehicle by force or intimidation)	State contends evidence (gun use, forcible removal, subsequent control/possession of vehicle, admissions) satisfies elements	Court held evidence was sufficient; a rational juror could find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt

Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183 (procedural bar to raising ineffective-assistance claims on appeal when not raised by motion for new trial)
Gray v. State, 213 Ga. App. 507 (standard for sufficiency review)
Bradford v. State, 223 Ga. App. 424 (elements of hijacking under OCGA § 16-5-44.1(b))
Gordon v. State, 316 Ga. App. 42 (application of "obtain" and possession concepts in hijacking cases)
Whaley v. State, 337 Ga. App. 50 (presence requirement satisfied where property under victim's control)
Heard v. State, 287 Ga. 554 (broad construction of "immediate presence" when victim controls the object)
Johnson v. State, 299 Ga. App. 706 (overt acts and conduct before/during/after may show intent or conspiracy to hijack)
Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40 (need for physical manifestation or other evidence to infer presence of a weapon)