Tanksley v. State, 323 Ga. App. 299

Tanksley was convicted after a jury trial of burglary, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Tanksley argues trial error: the court improperly instructed a State’s witness to repeat prior testimony or face perjury and that the jury instruction was flawed.
Evidence at trial showed Tanksley and accomplices broke into a clothing store, shots were fired, and property including clothing, a television, and a computer were taken.
McNair and McClendon testified for the State linking Tanksley to the crimes; the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.
At issue was whether the court’s handling of McNair’s immunity and testimony violated due process or coercively influenced the witness, and whether the jury charge contained plain error; the court held no reversible error on those points.
Tanksley challenged his sentence as a recidivist penalty under OCGA § 17-10-7 (c), claiming there was no competent proof of prior convictions; the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to lack of proven prior convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the McNair admonition plain error?	Tanksley argues the court threatened McNair to repeat testimony or face perjury.	Tanksley argues the admonition coerced testimony and violated due process.	No reversible error; admonition did not deprive fair trial.
Did the jury charge contain plain error?	Tanksley contends several parts of the armed robbery instruction were error.	Tanksley contends the charge misstates law or misleads on elements.	No plain error; the charge was considered as a whole and not likely to mislead.
Was Tanksley improperly sentenced as a recidivist without proven prior convictions?	State alleged three prior felonies but did not provide competent evidence of all three.	State contends prior convictions could be presumed from the record.	Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing due to lack of competent evidence of prior convictions.

Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (limits on coercive witness intimidation in certain contexts)
Terry v. State, 308 Ga. App. 424 (2011) (due process considerations with witness intimidation and defense presentation)
Hester v. State, 219 Ga. App. 256 (1995) (noting limited coercive conduct toward defense witnesses)
Mallory v. State, 271 Ga. 150 (1999) (confronts instruction on conflicting testimony and credibility)
Nanthabouthdy v. State, 245 Ga. App. 456 (2000) (duty-to-acquit vs. conviction language in charge; disjunctive language caution)
Ahn v. State, 279 Ga. App. 501 (2006) (clarifies admissible jury charge variants regarding knowledge and participation)
Vergara v. State, 287 Ga. 194 (2010) (instructions must be read in context; no error when not misleading)
Tarver v. State, 278 Ga. 358 (2004) (armed robbery elements and application in jury instructions)