Kevin Hutcherson v. State, A21A0235

Victim T.P. was robbed at knifepoint during a night-shift convenience-store job, forced into the bathroom, tied with a phone cable, and sexually assaulted; the assailant attempted anal intercourse and abducted her in a dark blue Ford pickup.
T.P. escaped by jumping from the truck, sustaining minor injuries; store employees called police who collected T.P.’s glasses and found Hutcherson’s wallet (with his ID) near the spot she jumped out.
Police broadcast a description; an occupied pickup matching the description fled, the driver fled on foot, and Hutcherson was later arrested on an unrelated offense; he denied involvement but admitted being in the area and wearing similar clothes.
T.P. identified Hutcherson in a formal six-photo lineup the day after the incident; Hutcherson was charged with multiple counts (armed robbery, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, possession of a knife during felony, theft by receiving) and entered a negotiated guilty plea to criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy before trial.
Hutcherson proceeded to jury trial on the remaining counts, was convicted on all, moved to withdraw his guilty plea and for a new trial (general grounds and challenging pre-trial ID), and the trial court denied both motions; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hutcherson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying new trial on general grounds (verdict contrary to evidence)	Verdict was against the evidence and conflicts warranted a new trial	Evidence was sufficient; trial court acted as thirteenth juror and properly exercised discretion	Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial
Whether pre-trial identification was unduly suggestive (driver’s license shown)	Police showed T.P. Hutcherson’s driver’s license, tainting subsequent photo lineup and causing misidentification	No evidence police suggested the license was the assailant; license was recovered in a confusing crime scene; formal lineup was unbiased and properly conducted	Affirmed — no impermissible suggestiveness; lineup valid and ID admissible
Whether trial court erred in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea (lack of capacity)	Hutcherson lacked mental capacity/legal impairment when pleading; counsel sought psychiatric evaluation	Plea colloquy, signed forms, counsel’s repeated meetings, and a competency evaluation support that plea was knowing and voluntary	Affirmed — State met its burden; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying withdrawal of plea

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warning requirement for custodial interrogation)
Thomas v. State, 310 Ga. 579 (two-step analysis for impermissibly suggestive identification)
Graham v. State, 300 Ga. 620 (standards for withdrawing a guilty plea and manifest injustice)
McGuyton v. State, 298 Ga. 351 (trial court discretion in plea-withdrawal decisions)
Smith v. State, 300 Ga. 532 (trial court as arbiter of general‑grounds new-trial claims)