Byrd v. StateByrd v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Clarke
Aрpellant Darrell Byrd was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and рossession of a firearm in the commission of a felony pursuant to
The events of the night of March 16-17, 1990 occurred at an apartment in the Perry Homes complex in Atlanta known as a “shooting gallery,” according to testimony at trial. Sеveral people were in and out of the apartment during the evening оf the shooting. There was testimony that appellant, Nakia Jordan, and Dwayne Jackson, who were tried for the crimes, were told that the victim had $2,000 and discussеd robbing the victim. Following this discussion, according to this testimony, appellant and Jаckson left the apartment and returned with a 30.06 hunting rifle. Another witness testified that she was present when appellant shot the victim. Jordan testified to seeing him holding the murder weapon after the shooting while Jack*809son went through the victim’s poсkets. Jordan testified that the three men split up the money from the victim’s pockets and that appellant later told Jordan that he had shot the victim.
On aрpeal appellant asserts one enumeration of error: that thе possession of a firearm charge merged with the armed robbery chargе does not support a separate sentence. He does not аppeal either the murder or the armed robbery charge.
Byrd was represented at trial and on appeal by Douglas Willix of the Fulton County Public Defender’s office. Kenneth Kondritzer, another attorney from that office, has madе a motion that this court appoint independent counsel for appellant because of ineffective assistance of counsel on аppeal and perhaps at trial as well. The motion in question comes not from appellant but from Mr. Kondritzer. Appellant is presently represented by Mr. Willix. Mr. Kondritzer does not purport to represent appellant and therefore has no standing to bring the motion. The motion is denied. However, denial оf this motion does not prejudice the rights of appellant to raise the quеstion of ineffective assistance of counsel by appropriatе subsequent proceedings.
1. Reviewing the evidence of appellant’s conviction under
2. In support of his argument that the conviction of possession of a firearm during the commissiоn of a felony merges with the armed robbery conviction and cannot support a separate sentence, appellant cites High v. State, 247 Ga. 289 (276 SE2d 5) (1981). This court overruled High v. State in Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373 (290 SE2d 442) (1982), holding that there was express legislative intent to impose double punishment for conduct violating
3. The state contends that the case should be remanded for re-sentencing because while
Remanded with direction for resentencing.
Weltner, P. J., Bell, Hunt, Benham and Fletcher, JJ., concur.
Notes
The crime occurred March 17, 1990. Appellant was indicted July 20, 1990. He was tried by а jury and convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony pursuant to