Patterson v. State, 312 Ga. App. 793

Patterson was convicted after a jury trial of burglary, armed robbery, three aggravated assaults, three kidnapping, and three false imprisonment counts.
The trial court granted new-trial relief on one kidnapping count but denied relief on other grounds; Patterson appeals.
The State challenged the sufficiency of evidence, asserted counsel was ineffective, and challenged admission of testimony under reciprocal discovery rules.
Steele pled guilty to several counts and testified that Patterson was not involved; evidence showed a multi-faceted crime including home invasion and vehicle theft.
Garza v. State (following Garza) governs the asportation element for kidnapping; the case was decided after Patterson’s conviction but applies under the pipeline rule.
The final judgment affirmed the convictions, with counts merged where applicable and Garza’s statutory amendments subsequent to the events at issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of asportation for kidnapping	Patterson argues movement was inherent to burglary/robbery	State contends movement met Garza factors	Sufficient evidence under Garza factors
Ineffective assistance for not challenging armed robbery indictment	Indictment lacked element of taking from immediate presence	Indictment sufficiently alleged elements through use of weapon	Indictment adequately alleged armed robbery; no ineffective assistance
Whether taking was from the victim's immediate presence	Patterson contends not in immediate presence since taking occurred elsewhere	Immediate presence broadly construed; taking under victim's control suffices	Evidence showed taking from immediate presence; sufficient under law
Admission of trooper testimony despite discovery violation	Discovery violation warrants exclusion of testimony	Testimony admissible; overwhelming evidence supports conviction	Any error was unlikely to contribute to verdict; judgment affirmed

Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (2008) (sets four-factor test for asportation in kidnapping; pipeline rule applied after conviction)
Campbell v. State, 223 Ga. App. 484 (1996) (indirectly supports inference of taking from presence when weapon used)
Maddox v. State, 174 Ga. App. 728 (1985) (recognizes broad scope of 'immediate presence' in robbery cases)
McCoon v. State, 294 Ga. App. 490 (2008) (immediate presence shown when property is within victim's control and not far away)
Henderson v. State, 285 Ga. 240 (2009) (movement after demanding property constitutes independent danger to victim)
Williams v. State, 307 Ga. App. 675 (2011) (movement of victim can be after initial assault for asportation element)
Borders v. State, 270 Ga. 804 (1999) (indictment defects avoided when elements are implied by weapon use)
Bruce v. State, 252 Ga. App. 494 (2001) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required for reversal)
Lajara v. State, 263 Ga. 438 (1993) (when one issue lacks merit, court need not address others)