Parker v. State
320 Ga. App. 319
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Parker was convicted by jury of burglary, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, robbery by intimidation, and robbery by force.
- He appealed challenging identification sufficiency and restitutionability; no new trial granted.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
- The court vacated the restitution order and remanded for a restitution-hearing under OCGA 17-14-7(b).
- The restitution order was entered as a condition of probation without a hearing or evidence.
- The case discusses the interplay between OCGA 17-14-7(b) and OCGA 42-8-35(a)(7) and construes the latest legislative expression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the identification evidence legally sufficient to convict Parker? | Parker argues identification was insufficient and another suspect could fit the description. | Parker asserts misidentification and suggests reasonable innocence theories. | Yes; sufficient evidence identified Parker and misidentification issues were for the jury. |
| Whether a restitution hearing was required before imposing restitution? | Parker contends the court should have held a hearing prior to or at sentencing. | State argues no pre-sentencing hearing was required if no prior agreement. | A restitution hearing is required when parties have not agreed on amount prior to sentencing; order vacated and remanded for hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeson v. State, 287 Ga. 764 (Ga. 2010) (evidence evaluation standard; defer to jury on weight and credibility)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (sufficiency review requires rational juror could convict beyond reasonable doubt)
- Glaze v. State, 317 Ga. App. 679 (Ga. App. 2012) (identification sufficiency framework (circumstantial evidence considerations))