Regent v. State, 299 Ga. 172

Steven Regent was indicted on one count of aggravated assault and one count of aggravated battery for twice cutting his girlfriend’s throat in quick succession.
The indictment described assault as "cutting her throat with a knife" (weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury) and battery as "maliciously cause bodily harm . . . by seriously disfiguring her body" by "slashing her across the throat with a knife."
Regent pled guilty to both counts; the victim testified about two rapid successive throat wounds causing long-term impairments.
Trial court sentenced Regent to consecutive terms: 20 years (12 to serve) for aggravated assault and a consecutive 10-year term for aggravated battery.
Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the required-evidence (Blockburger) test and finding different elements for the two offenses.
Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and held the aggravated assault conviction merged into the aggravated battery conviction under OCGA § 16-1-6(2) because the offenses differed only by the seriousness of the injury/risk of injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Regent)	Held
Whether two rapid knife cuts constitute separate criminal acts	Each cut supported a separate offense as charged	Cuts were part of a continuous single criminal transaction	Actions were a continuous criminal act; not separate acts
Whether aggravated assault and aggravated battery must merge under OCGA § 16-1-6(1) (required-evidence)	Elements differ so required-evidence test allows separate convictions	Merger should apply because offenses arise from same conduct	Required-evidence test alone was insufficient to resolve merger here
Whether aggravated assault is included in aggravated battery under OCGA § 16-1-6(2) (less serious injury/risk)	Offenses are distinct because aggravated assault includes a weapon element	Where aggravated battery involves serious disfigurement from a weapon, assault (weapon causing risk) is subsumed	Aggravated assault is included in aggravated battery under § 16-1-6(2); convictions must merge
Legality of consecutive sentences for both convictions	Separate convictions support consecutive sentences	Double punishment for the same conduct is barred when crimes merge	Consecutive sentence for the merged offenses was improper; merger required

Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (required-evidence test for included offenses)
Montes v. State, 262 Ga. 473 (multiple wounds in quick succession may be a single assault)
Coleman v. State, 286 Ga. 291 (multiple wounds inflicted in quick succession do not necessarily create separate assaults)
Ingram v. State, 279 Ga. 132 (distinct criminal acts require a deliberate interval between them)
Ledford v. State, 289 Ga. 70 (OCGA § 16-1-6(2) can require merger despite Blockburger analysis)
Mikell v. State, 286 Ga. 722 (many successive stab wounds can constitute a single assault)
Thomas v. State, 310 Ga. App. 404 (aggravated assault and aggravated battery merged under § 16-1-6(2) when both premised on same act)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes the required-evidence test)
Dasher v. State, 285 Ga. 308 (recognition that hands/feet may be deadly weapons depending on circumstances)