Michael C. Jefferson v. State
A21A0161
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- July 6, 2009: victim was set upon by three men, beaten (fists, kicks, struck with a stick/tree branch) and had his backpack (wallet, liquor, cigarettes) taken.
- Jefferson was identified at trial; police found him concealing a bottle matching the stolen liquor; a juvenile co-participant testified for the State.
- Jefferson was tried and convicted of armed robbery and multiple counts of aggravated assault; sentencing initially imposed a 20-year term for armed robbery and concurrent terms for aggravated assault counts (one later merged; one remained contested).
- At trial the court instructed the jury that they were “entitled, but not required” to consider lesser-included offenses and also instructed on unanimity of verdicts.
- Jefferson appealed claiming (1) the lesser-included instruction was plain error because it effectively required a unanimous verdict on the greater offense before considering the lesser, and (2) the aggravated assault conviction should have merged with the armed robbery conviction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed as to the jury instruction (no plain error) but held the aggravated assault count merged into the armed robbery conviction, vacating that conviction and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Jefferson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial courts "entitled but not required" instruction on lesser-included offenses was plain error | The instruction, combined with unanimity instruction, implied jurors had to unanimously decide the greater offense before considering a lesser, which is plain error | The instruction was permissive and merely authorized the jury to decide whether to consider lesser offenses; no clear/obvious error and no showing of prejudice | Affirmed: no plain error (instruction permissible and not shown to have affected substantial rights) |
| Whether the aggravated assault conviction must merge into the armed robbery conviction under the required-evidence test | The aggravated assault count arose from the same act/transaction as the armed robbery and thus must merge | The State relied on differing descriptions of weapons and separate counts, but that does not avoid merger under the required-evidence test unless crimes were completed in separate transactions | Reversed in part: aggravated assault merged into armed robbery; conviction and sentence on that aggravated assault count vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Hall, 305 Ga. 363 (Ga. 2019) (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon merges into armed robbery when part of same act or transaction)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (Ga. 2006) (required-evidence test: compare statutory elements to determine merger)
- Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 507 (Ga. 2019) (clarifies that Drinkard compares elements, not particular factual descriptions of weapon used)
- Morris v. State, 303 Ga. 192 (Ga. 2018) (plain-error standard for unpreserved jury-instruction claims)
- Cantrell v. State, 266 Ga. 700 (Ga. 1996) (error where jury was effectively required to reach unanimous verdict on lesser before considering greater)
- Kunselman v. State, 232 Ga. App. 323 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (error where jury instructed it could consider lesser only after finding not guilty of greater, combined with unanimity instruction)