Thomas v. State, 314 Ga. App. 124

Thomas and accomplice Guadalupe robbed Gwinnett County businesses in May–June 2006, armed with a handgun, moving employees/customers to back rooms and binding them, then stealing money and goods.
Guadalupe pled guilty and testified at Thomas's trial identifying Thomas as the gunman in each armed robbery.
Victims included store employees and a customer who were moved to back areas and confined with zip ties during the robberies.
Thomas was convicted by a jury on seven counts of armed robbery, six counts of kidnapping, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
On appeal, Thomas challenged asportation sufficiency for kidnapping, the indictment’s sufficiency for armed robbery, denial of for-cause juror strikes, admission of victim-impact testimony, and trial counsel’s effectiveness regarding objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Asportation sufficiency for kidnapping	Thomas argues movement was minimal and incidental to robbery (Garza must apply).	Movement created additional danger and control, not inherent to other offenses (sufficient asportation).	Sufficient asportation established; movement and confinement increased danger.
Indictment sufficiency for armed robbery counts	Indictment must allege property of another; failure to do so renders counts invalid.	Counts adequately allege robbery, property taken from victims; mislabeling absence of ownership does not invalidate.	Indictment deemed sufficient; ownership detail not required for robbery.
Denial of for-cause juror strikes	Trial court failed to strike jurors with language-barrier or innocence-presumption concerns.	Court properly evaluated equivocal responses and did not abuse discretion.	No abuse; jurors properly qualified or their voir dire showed ability to be impartial.
Victim-impact testimony and trial counsel effectiveness	Counsel should have objected to impermissible victim-impact testimony; failure prejudiced defense.	No prejudice; overwhelming evidence of guilt; objections would not have changed outcome.	No ineffective assistance; absence of prejudice to outcome.

Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (2008) (asportation can be valid even if minimal and incidental to other offenses)
Onumah v. State, 313 Ga.App. 269 (2011) (asportation requirement satisfied where movement increases victim danger)
Patterson v. State, 312 Ga.App. 793 (2011) (movement to back of store not inherent to robbery defeats mere incidental movement view)
Ward v. State, 304 Ga.App. 517 (2010) (robbery is a crime against possession; ownership not essential)
Thomas v. State, 289 Ga. 877 (2011) (factors for evaluating danger and control in kidnapping context)
Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 889 (2010) (timeliness and method for challenging indictments; motions in arrest of judgment)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (timeliness in challenging indictments on appeal)
Colon v. State, 275 Ga.App. 73 (2005) (preservation and standard for appellate review of trial objections)
Taylor v. State, 264 Ga.App. 665 (2003) (limited prejudice showing required for ineffective assistance in close cases)
Somchith v. State, 272 Ga. 261 (2000) (voir dire and juror qualification standards)
Greene v. State, 268 Ga. 47 (1997) (appellate deference to trial court in evaluating voir dire)
Thorpe v. State, 285 Ga. 604 (2009) (equivocal voir dire responses and juror qualification; abuse of discretion standard)
Colon v. State, 275 Ga.App. 73 (2005) (preservation and standard for appellate review of trial objections)