A jury fоund Charles Anderson guilty of ten counts of armed robbery, seven counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of kidnapping. Anderson appeals his conviction and the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial, asserting numerous grounds. We affirm.
1. Anderson argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction as to 11 of the counts against him. On appeal, Anderson no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the verdict.
Paul v. State,
The evidence showed that Anderson committed a series of robberies in the Buckhead area of Atlanta during a three-month period in the winter of 1994. On January 11, 1994, a large, African-American male with a light complexion who was wearing a brown jacket entered a Heavenly Ham stоre with a gun drawn and demanded money from Shawn Meade and Marilyn Fillingim, two employees behind the counter. When Meade explained that the money was in the back office, the man went with Meade and Fillingim to the office, where two more employees — Sara Hyatt and Lisa Hanrahan — were counting the day’s receipts. The man took the money, ordered the four employees to sit down and wait ten minutes, and then left the store. Although Fillingim did not testify and Hyatt was unable to identify the man, both Meade and Hanrahan positively identified Anderson as the perpetrator and also identified his jacket and gun, which were introduced into evidence. 1 According to Hanra *867 han, Anderson was “very polite, as armed robbers go.”
On January 21, 1994, an African-American male with a light skin tone wearing a brown jacket entered the Cup & Saucer gift shop, pointed his gun at customer Paul Cahoon, and demanded money from Cahoon and employee Teresa Hess. Cahoon gave the man — whom he described as “polite” — $65 from his wallet, and Hess handed him money from the cash register. The man then ordered Cahoon and Hess to the back of the store, told them to wait 15 minutеs, and left. Although Hess did not testify at trial, Cahoon, who identified Anderson from a pre-trial lineup, testified that Anderson was the man who committed the robbery and that he recognized Anderson’s jacket as the one he wore during the robbery.
On January 23, 1994, an African-American man wearing a blue jacket and knit cap approached Donald Waite with a gun while Waite was standing at a Bank South automatic teller machine and told him to withdraw $500. After Waite explained that he did not have that much money in his account, the man snatched the money Wаite had already withdrawn from his hand, then ordered Waite to drive away without looking back. Although Waite could not positively identify Anderson in court, Waite’s description of the robber and his clothing matched Anderson’s appearance and clothing seized from Anderson’s apartment. Waite also recognized Anderson’s gun as the one used in the robbery. Finally, Waite described the robber’s demeanor as initially polite and calm but growing more aggressive as the robbery progressed.
On January 26, 1994, a light-complected African-American male robbed cigarette vendor Bruce Hosch as he emerged from servicing the cigarette machines at a Buckhead bar. The robber pulled a gun on Hosch, ordered him to “give it up,” grabbed two bags of money, and directed Hosch to get into his car and drive away. Hosch identified Anderson as the robber during a pre-trial photographic lineup and testified that he was “sure” of his identification.
On January 30, 1994, a tall, husky African-American male robbed Mason Shives at the same Bank South ATM where Donald Waite had been robbed a week earlier. After taking $110 from Shives, the robber asked Shives to withdraw another $100. Shives explained that he was a student and had no more money, after which the man returned some of Shives’ money and told Shives to drive away and not look back. Shives identified Anderson as the perpetrator in a pretrial lineup and again in court, stating that he was “certain” of his identification. Shives also positively identified Anderson’s gun as the *868 one used to rob him.
On February 6, 1994, a light-skinned African-American male robbed Richard deMayo at gunpoint at an ATM in.DeKalb County, near the Brookhaven area. 2 Afterward, the robber ordered deMayo to get into his car and drive away. Instead, deMayo followed the man in his car and used a cell phone to dial 911. DeKalb County police responded and chased the man down MARTA tracks, through a wooded area, and into an apartment complex on Peachtree Road in Fulton County where Andrea Largay was cleaning her car. The man ran toward Largay and demanded her car keys. She threw her keys to the ground and fled to call 911. The man could not start Largay’s car, sо he jumped into the car of Naomi Matusow, an elderly resident of the complex who was driving by at the time, and told Matusow to drive away. Matusow did as the man ordered and finally persuaded him to exit the car at a nearby intersection.
Matusow, who was too frightened to look at her kidnapper during the incident, could not identify Anderson. However, both deMayo and Largay were able to identify Anderson. In addition, Matusow’s future husband, who was at the complex that day and saw Anderson’s confrontation with Largay, identified Anderson from a pre-trial photographic lineup.
On February 15, 1994, a man approached Gina Crusco, the manager of a Buckhead orthodontic office, as she was walking to the bank to make a deposit and demanded that she give him the deposit envelope. Although Crusco initially tried to ignore the man, she handed him the envelope after he pulled a gun, grabbed her arm, and turned her around. The robber would not let Crusco proceed to the bank but instead ordered her to walk back to her office without turning around. Crusco identified Anderson at a pre-trial hearing as the man who robbed her, and she identified him again at trial, testifying that she had “no doubt” he was the culprit. Crusco also recognized Anderson’s hat and jacket as clothing worn by the robber. Furthermore, a building janitor identified Anderson as the man he had seen the day before the robbery lurking about in shrubbery near the orthodontic office.
On February 21, 1994, a large, light-skinned African-American man approached the counter at an Oxford Book Store, showed clerk Tom Corley a gun, and demanded money. The man left after Corley complied, and Corley then called for help over the store’s loudspeaker. Corley told employee Greg Halliday what had happened, and Halliday ran after the robber. Halliday caught up with the man *869 outside the store, where he was attempting to rob a customer. The man turned toward Halliday and, gesturing with his gun, told Halliday to go back in the store, which Halliday did. Corley could not identify Anderson, but he testified that Anderson’s gun resembled the one used in the robbery. Halliday identified Anderson both at a pre-trial lineup and in court.
On March 18,1994, a mаn described as “medium brown” entered Poppy’s, a clothing store in Buckhead, showed his gun to sales clerk Joan Bone, and asked for money. Upon learning that Bone did not have the key to the cash register, the man ordered her back to the manager’s office, where manager Peggy Horne and employee Kathy Roche were eating lunch. The man ordered all three women to the front of the store, where Horne opened the cash drawer and gave him money. The man left the store after telling the women to go into a dressing room and stay for five minutes. Horne identified Anderson at trial as “definitely the man” who robbed her. Roche did not testify at trial, but Bone identified Anderson as the perpetrator at a pretrial photographic lineup and again in court.
On March 28, 1994, a man approached Charles Pickett while he was withdrawing money at a First Union ATM in Buckhead, engaged Pickett in conversation, and then demanded the money Pickett had withdrawn. After seeing that the man had a gun, Pickett gave him the money, and the man then asked him to withdraw more. Pickett sаw the robber look away and bolted, but fell in the parking lot. Pickett looked up to see the man standing over him with the gun. The man ordered Pickett to return to the teller, but walked away when Pickett screamed for help. Pickett identified Anderson as the robber both at a pre-trial lineup and in court.
On April 3, 1994, Atlanta Police Detective C. M. Long was parked in an unmarked car next to the Bank South ATM where Donald Waite and Mason Shives had been robbed. Long had reviewed the victims’ descriptions of the perpetrator in the string of Buckhead rоbberies, and he was watching the ATM and looking for a man who matched the descriptions. Long saw Anderson approach several pedestrians in the area. Anderson then approached Long’s car and offered to sell him a newspaper, at which point Long realized that Anderson matched the descriptions of the robber. Long did a pat-down search of Anderson and found a fake silver handgun with a white pearl handle, then arrested him.
At trial, the State introduced various articles of clothing, eyeglasses, and hats thаt were found either on Anderson’s person or at his residence and that matched the victims’ descriptions of clothing worn by the robber. The State also introduced a notebook found at Anderson’s residence that included writings such as “First Union Bank at closing time, Piedmont, woman in white car.” Finally, the *870 State introduced evidence that Anderson had committed four earlier armed robberies — two in 1973 and two in 1983 — all at businesses in or near Buckhead.
Anderson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the charges relating to Sara Hyatt, Tom Corley, Naomi Matusow, Peggy Horne, and Donald Waite on the grounds that these witnesses could not identify Anderson as the perpetrator. Other witnesses involved in the same incidents as Hyatt, Corley, Matusow, and Horne, however,
were
able to positively identify Anderson as the culprit. “The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.” OCGA § 24-4-8. The fact that other witnesses were not able to identify Anderson goes only “to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the testifying witness, which is solely within the purview of the jury.”
Samuels v. State,
Although Waite was not able to positively identify Anderson at trial, other evidence linked Anderson to the robbery of Waite. Waite was able to identify Anderson’s jacket, hat, and distinctive gun. Moreover, other witnesses positively identified Anderson as the perpetrator of other robberies that were part of a continuing crime spree over a short period of timе in the same area, including one other robbery at the same ATM. Such similar transaction evidence serves to prove identity.
Leaver v. State,
Next, Anderson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions of aggravated assault against Andrea Largay and Greg Halliday. A person commits assault when he “[c]ommits an act which places another in reasonable аpprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.” OCGA § 16-5-20. A person commits aggravated assault when he commits assault “(1) [w]ith intent to . . . rob” or “(2) [w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury.” OCGA § 16-5-21 (a). Largay testified that she felt “alarm” and “fear” when Anderson ran toward her, demanded her car keys, and attempted to drive away in her car. This testimony was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Anderson assaulted Largay with the intent to rob her. See OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). Halliday testified that Anderson “turned his full attention to [Halliday],” “gestured] with his gun,” and ordered him to return to the book store, which Halliday did. This evidence
*871
authorized a finding that Anderson assaulted Halliday with a deadly weapon. See OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2);
Hurt v. State,
Anderson also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for the armed robbery of Mason Shives, arguing there was no evidence that Anderson used a handgun to intimidate Shives. Pursuant to OCGA § 16-8-41, “[a] person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he . . . takes [the] property of another from the person ... by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon.” The mere fact that a person
has
a weapon is insufficient to establish armed robbery.
Hicks v. State,
Anderson next contends that the evidence was insufficient to show he kidnapped Gina Crusco because she did not testify that she was abducted or stolen away. OCGA § 16-5-40 defines kidnapping as “abduct [ing] or steal [ing] away any person without lawful authority or warrant and holding] such person against [her] will.” Although there is an asportation element to this crime, “ ‘only the slightest movement of the victim is required to establish that element.’ ”
Estes v. State,
Finally, Anderson argues that there was no evidence that he committed aggravated assault against Marilyn Fillingim and Kathy Roche, neither оf whom testified at trial. The victim’s state of mind may be proved by circumstantial evidence, however, and may be inferred by the victim’s conduct.
Williams v. State,
2. Anderson argues that the trial сourt erred in allowing him to proceed pro se. We disagree. While a defendant has a right to counsel in any prosecution which could result in imprisonment, “the accused also has a fundamental right to represent himself in a . . . criminal trial when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” (Punctuation omitted.)
Clarke v. Zant,
The record clearly establishes that Anderson knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Anderson repeatedly told the trial court that he wanted to fire his court-appointed counsel and proceed pro se. Upon inquiry from the trial court, Anderson indicated that he had studied law in prison, that he was familiar with the rules of evidence, that he had seen the indictment against him, and that he was aware of the sentences he could receive if found guilty. The trial judge told Anderson that he thought it was “unwise” for Anderson to represent himself and that he felt Anderson was not as familiar with the law and court procedure as a “trained lawyer,” and the judge strongly urged Anderson not to represent himself. After Anderson insisted on representing himself, the trial court directed his court-appointed counsel to remain in the courtroom as a “technical advisor” available to assist Anderson upon request. 3 When Anderson voluntarily left the courtroom during part of the trial, the trial court ordered *873 court-appointed counsel to take a more active role and make objections to preserve Anderson’s rights. Finally, despite his advisory status, counsel — and not Anderson — argued Anderson’s motions for directed verdict at the close of trial. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in permitting Anderson to proceed pro se. Reviere, supra.
3. In two enumerations of error, Anderson claims that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by allowing the trial to proceed when he was not present. Specifically, Anderson contends that the trial court prevented him from presenting a defense and denied him the right to cross-examine a key prosecution witness. These contentions lack merit.
Three times during trial proceedings, Anderson, who was in the custody of the sheriff, demanded to be taken back to his cell. The trial court allowed Anderson to leave the courtroom аnd told him that he had the right to return at any time. It appears from the record that when Anderson asked to return, his request was honored. As a result of Anderson’s absences, he was not present during voir dire or for the examination of an important State witness, Detective Currence. Anderson thus failed to exercise his right to cross-examine Detective Currence, who was excused after testifying and was not called back when Anderson presented his case.
“[A] defendant has a right to be present at his trial, but [he] may waive that right.”
Lonchar v. State,
4. Anderson also asserts that the trial court hampered his right to present a defense by refusing to allow him to present evidence of other armed robberies that occurred in Buckhead following Anderson’s arrest and incarceration. As the Supreme Court recently stated,
a defendant is entitled to introduce relеvant and admissible testimony tending to show that another person committed the crime for which the defendant is tried. However, the proffered evidence must raise a reasonable inference of the defendant’s innocence, and must . . . show that the other person has recently committed a crime of the same or similar nature.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Klinect v. State,
5. Anderson contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the pre-trial lineup at which six of the nine participating witnesses identified Anderson. According to Anderson, the lineup was so suggestive that evidence of it should have been excluded. We use a two-part test in determining whether evidence of pre-trial identification should be excluded: “The threshold inquiry is whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. Only if it was need the court consider the second question: whether there was a vеry substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” (Punctuation omitted.)
Odim v. State,
6. Anderson argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the notebook recovered from his residence because the State never demonstrated the notebook’s probаtive value. We disagree. The admission of evidence is a matter which rests largely within the discretion of the trial court.
Bierria v. State,
7. Anderson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of four of his prior armed robberies, which he claims were too remote in time and were not linked to him. The prior robberies occurred in 1973 and 1983 — 22 years and 12 years, respectively, before trial. Evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal acts is admissible “if it is substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character.” (Punctuation omitted.)
Rich v. State,
8. Anderson asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion for severance of the offenses charged. “An abuse of discretion standard applies when reviewing denial of a motion to sever the trial of separate offenses.”
Agony v. State,
[w]here . . . the similarity of the offenses reaches the level of a pattern which shows a common scheme, plаn or a modus operandi so strikingly similar that the totality of the facts unerringly demonstrates and designates the defendant as the common perpetrator.
(Punctuation omitted.)
Sabo v. State,
The ten robberies that form the basis оf the charges against Anderson were remarkably similar in many respects and can be seen as one. continuous crime spree. All ten robberies occurred during a three-month period at locations in close proximity both to each other and to MARTA bus stops.
4
The robber wore similar clothing in all incidents and often attempted to disguise his face with a hat, glasses, or sweater pulled up over his mouth. The robber invariably began the crimes behaving politely, earning himself the appellation “Gentleman Bandit,” but he grew aggressivе if challenged. He would approach the victims at either a Buckhead business or ATM, pointing or holding a gun, and would demand money. After getting the money, he would order ATM victims to drive away and not look back, and he would direct store victims to wait at the back for a brief period before leaving. The only incidents that do not fit this pattern are those involving Andrea Largay and Naomi Matusow. However, the charges relating to those incidents arose from Anderson’s bungled robbery of Richard deMayo at an ATM — an incident which
did
fit the pattern — and, thus, severance was not required. See
Langston v.
State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The gun Anderson used in the string of robberies was a toy pistol. Nevertheless, the *867 victims who saw the gun testified that they believed it was real. It is immaterial for our analysis whether the gun was a toy. See page 871, infra.
Anderson was not charged in this case with the robbery of deMayo, presumably because the incident occurred in DeKalb County.
Anderson acquiesced to appointed counsel’s role as technical advisor.
A MARTA bus card was found on Anderson’s person when he was arrested.