Wallace v. State, 299 Ga. 672

Wallace, Pindling, and Cortez planned a trip to New York but lacked funds; Wallace suggested robbing Pett, a marijuana dealer he and Pindling had met.
On July 13, 2013, Wallace arranged a meeting with Pett at an abandoned house; Cortez met Pett on the porch and purchased marijuana, Pindling shot Pett in the back, and Wallace took Pett’s backpack containing a gun and cash.
Pett died of the gunshot; investigators used phone records and GPS on a rented car to identify and arrest Wallace, Pindling, and Cortez after they returned from New York.
A grand jury indicted Wallace, Pindling, and Cortez; Wallace and Pindling faced murder and related charges, while Cortez was charged with armed robbery and unlawful possession (later pleaded guilty to armed robbery and testified for the State).
A jury convicted Wallace of felony murder, armed robbery, two counts of theft by taking, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; the trial court merged aggravated assault with felony murder but sentenced separately on the theft counts.
On appeal Wallace challenged only the denial of his selective-prosecution claim; the Court reviewed sufficiency sua sponte and also addressed merger of the theft counts with armed robbery.

Issue	Wallace's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	Evidence insufficient argument not raised at trial but relevant	Evidence supports convictions as a party to the crime	Court reviewed and found evidence legally sufficient to support convictions (Jackson standard)
Merger of theft-by-taking counts with armed robbery	Theft counts are separate convictions	Theft merges into armed robbery when arising from same transaction	Court held theft convictions must be vacated and sentences vacated (theft merged into armed robbery)
Selective prosecution based on charging Cortez less severely	Prosecutor intentionally discriminated by charging Cortez with lesser offenses despite equal culpability and cooperation	Prosecutor exercised permissible charging discretion based on differing culpability and cooperation; no evidence of discriminatory animus	Court rejected selective-prosecution claim for lack of evidence showing discriminatory purpose
Sentencing/consequential relief	Requests reversal or relief based on alleged prosecutorial discrimination and sentencing errors	State asks affirmance except for required merger relief	Court affirmed convictions and sentences except vacated theft-by-taking convictions and sentences

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
Hulett v. State, 296 Ga. 49 (2014) (theft-by-taking merger principles)
McDonald v. State, 296 Ga. 643 (2015) (theft merges into armed robbery when arising from same transaction)
Coe v. State, 274 Ga. 265 (2001) (standard for proving selective prosecution requires purposeful discrimination)
Powell v. State, 291 Ga. 743 (2012) (criminal liability of parties to a crime)
Russell v. State, 222 Ga. App. 475 (1996) (prosecutorial charging discretion and evidentiary considerations)
Dyal v. State, 297 Ga. 184 (2015) (merger of aggravated assault with felony murder)