Smallwood v. State, 310 Ga. 445

On Jan. 18, 2019, deputies found Derek Smallwood inside a tan Toyota Camry in an employee parking lot; owner said he did not know Smallwood or give permission to be in the car.
Owner reported a missing cell phone and a bottle of laundry soap; both items were later found in a grocery sack in Smallwood’s backpack.
Smallwood’s backpack also contained a glass smoking pipe with burnt marijuana residue, a grinder, and a digital scale. Smallwood told deputies he entered the car because he was cold and thought it looked abandoned.
Smallwood was charged with felony entering an automobile with intent to commit theft (OCGA § 16-8-18), theft by taking, and possession of drug-related objects; he demurred, arguing § 16-8-18 is void for vagueness.
After waiving a jury trial and stipulating to the facts, the trial court convicted and sentenced Smallwood (probation and fine); he appealed, raising vagueness and a rule-of-lenity sentencing claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smallwood)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether OCGA § 16-8-18 is unconstitutionally vague (facial and as-applied)	Statute is vague on its face and as applied and fails to give fair warning or prevent arbitrary enforcement	Statute gives fair warning for entering another’s vehicle with intent to steal; as-applied challenge fails because facts fall squarely within the statute	Court: § 16-8-18 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied or on its face because defendant’s conduct falls within the statute’s core and it provides adequate enforcement standards
Whether the rule of lenity requires conviction/sentencing under misdemeanor criminal trespass (OCGA § 16-7-21(b)(1)) instead of felony § 16-8-18	Because Smallwood’s conduct also fits criminal trespass, ambiguity in punishments means lenity mandates the lesser misdemeanor penalty	The entering-an-automobile statute is the more specific offense (entry with intent to commit theft/felony) and thus controls; lenity not implicated after statutory construction	Court: The specific statute (§ 16-8-18) governs over the general trespass statute; rule of lenity does not apply and felony conviction/sentence affirmed

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (vagueness doctrine principles and limits on facial challenges)
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (vagueness analysis focusing on real-world applications of statutory terms)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness standard outside First Amendment context)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (discussion of facial-challenge burdens)
Derrico v. State, 306 Ga. 634 (2019) (Georgia vagueness precedent applying ordinary-intelligence fair-warning test)
Daddario v. State, 307 Ga. 179 (2019) (requirement to examine as-applied challenge first outside First Amendment cases)
Banta v. State, 281 Ga. 615 (2007) (rule of lenity explained and applied)
State v. Nankervis, 295 Ga. 406 (2014) (specific statute prevails over general statute; lenity not implicated)