Chumley was indicted in separate indictments for, and convicted at a single trial of, armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime (the crime being the armed robbery). He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery, and to a concurrent five-year sentence on the firearm possession charge.
1. Chumley’s argument that the trial court erred in requiring him to be tried on both indictments at a single trial over his oral objection is without merit. Under the facts of this case, the same conduct of the accused was alleged to establish the commission of both crimes (which distinguishes
Bradford v. State,
We express no opinion upon whether by procedural flaw Chumley might have waived his right to object to this single prosecution; we choose instead to answer the point on the merits.
2. Under the facts of this case, where only one firearm was involved in the offense, the possession charge becomes a lesser included offense of the armed robbery charge. We so ruled in
Roberts v. State,
3. Our review of the statement given to officers by Chumley after his arrest shows that it is clearly a confession and not a mere incriminating statement under the test of
Robinson v. State,
The judgment of conviction of armed robbery is affirmed; the judgment of conviction of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime is vacated.
