WHALEY v. the STATE., 343 Ga. App. 701

Whaley was tried by jury and convicted under OCGA § 16-14-4(a) (RICO) for acquiring money/property through a pattern of racketeering; he was convicted individually and as a party to a crime; conspiracy verdict merged for sentencing.
Victim: D.E.L. Development (DEL). From ~2005–2012 DEL accounts payable manager Sharron Rice created 841+ false payables and stole $800,000+ by issuing unauthorized checks to herself and to creditors of Rice and Whaley.
Rice and Whaley were romantically involved; stolen funds were funneled through four bank accounts (Whaley’s Hughes Services account, a joint account, Rice’s Hughes account, and Whaley’s personal account) to pay personal expenses and to “wash” proceeds.
Whaley had a 2005 first-offender guilty plea for theft (~$16,000 restitution) and opened his Hughes Services account the day before entering that plea; the State introduced that prior act to show motive/knowledge.
Whaley moved for a new trial on sufficiency, statute-of-limitations, and evidentiary (OCGA § 24-4-404(b)) grounds and argued ineffective assistance for failure to timely object to the extrinsic-act evidence; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Whaley's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for RICO conviction	Whaley lacked knowledge of fraud and personally received only a small portion of stolen funds	Evidence permitted the jury to find Whaley knowingly joined Rice’s scheme; as co-conspirator he is responsible for acts of Rice	Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson standard; jury could reject Whaley’s lack-of-knowledge defense
Statute of limitations (RICO)	Last overt act in Whaley’s accounts occurred >5 years before indictment thus prosecution time-barred	Whaley remained responsible for conspiratorial acts; Rice’s misconduct continued until discovery in 2012; checks to Whaley as late as Aug 31, 2011	Affirmed — prosecution not time-barred; overt acts fall within limitations period
Admission of prior theft (extrinsic-act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b))	Prior plea was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial propensity evidence	Prior theft was admissible to show motive, knowledge, plan, absence of mistake; probative value outweighed prejudice	Affirmed — trial court properly admitted prior act to show motive/knowledge; not excluded under OCGA § 24-4-403
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to extrinsic-act evidence	Counsel erred by not raising proper objection, prejudicing defense	Objecting would have been futile because evidence was admissible; failure to pursue futile objection not deficient	Affirmed — no ineffective assistance because the underlying objection would have failed

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268 (co-conspirator acts imputed to each conspirator)
Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324 (plain-error standard explanation)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (Rule 404(b) relevance and Rule 403 probative-value analysis)
Brooks v. State, 298 Ga. 722 (no overall-similarity requirement for motive evidence)
Smart v. State, 299 Ga. 414 (admission of extrinsic evidence explaining motive/intent)
Akintoye v. State, 340 Ga. App. 777 (discussing racketeering predicate acts)
Brown v. State, 321 Ga. App. 198 (RICO predicate/theft principles)