*1 Dodd, Fisher & Burton F. Matthew R. Phillips, Simpson; Schiff Sears, Hardin, Leah for appellee. Ward A16A1103. DANIELS v. THE STATE. 94)
McMlLLIAN, Judge. Markel Daniels was convicted as a to the crimes
Marquise assault, of armed of a firearm robbery, aggravated possession the commission of a in connection with the armed during of a convenience store. He the denial of his appeals following trial, amended, motion for new as in his sole enumeration of arguing error that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. As below, more set forth we now affirm. fully verdict, construed to Brown v. Properly support jury’s Driskell, Daniels’ 300) (2012), Quincy 8, 2013, testified that on October Daniels con alleged accomplicе, store, ceived a to rob Nick & convenience which Daniels plan Sonny’s believed would be the “easiest because he was a target” “regular” customer in the store and knew the that worked there. Driskell said the was for Daniels to plan buy “single” cigarette, when the clerk the cash Driskell would draw a opened registеr, gun on the clerk and reach in and out of the grab money register.1 house,
Driskell testified that first went to Daniels’ mother’s they store, which was near the and then walked to the store from there. He said as walked to the store Daniels handed him a mask and a to use As seen from the store surveil- video, trial, lance which was for the at Daniеls entered the played store first and then Driskell walked in almost behind immediately him, himself near the side of the counter where the positioning open cash was located while Daniels walked around to the front of register clerk, the counter. The store who was in the back of the store standing entered, merchandise when Dаniels and Driskell walked adjusting the aisle who turned his face from the clerk. up past away counter, After the clerk walked behind the Daniels held one up finger to indicate he wanted one and the clerk handed him a cigarette, 1 Driskell testified that Daniels wanted Driskell to rob the store because Driskell owed wife, money, Daniеls rent and his mother denied that Driskell lived with psychologist diagnosed Daniels. A forensic testified that Driskell had an of 71 and had been IQ functioning, easily as borderline intellectual and his aunt testified that he was influenced and likely to do what others told him to do. *2 off the counter. The clerk then cigarette picked up money it, moved baсk to the cash at which register opened point Driskell, face, who had a mask over his walked behind the placed counter, and reached toward the As shown displayed gun, register. video, on the Daniels remained on the counter from leaning watching a few feet as Driskell brandished the and reached his just away gun hand toward the Daniels then held his hands and ran out register. up store, and Driskell finished and ran out of grabbing money the store about six seconds later. A witness who lived across from the convenience store testified that he observed the men run out of the store, and that he saw the first man run out and then another man later, run out behind him the most” ten seconds and that the men “[a]t other,” were “one behind the and in the same direction.2 Driskell, woods, he and Daniels ran to the where he According Daniels the and Daniels covered the and mask with gave money gun “stuff,”3 leaves and and then went to Daniels’ mother’s they together home, house. Daniels went inside to ask his mother to him a ride give and his mоther testified at trial that he told her then that there had been a at the store. Daniels’ mother testified that she did not house, see Driskell inside her but when she went outside to give ride, Daniels a Daniels and Driskell were on the porch together Driskell, whom she knew from the asked her if neighborhood, she would also him a ride. Daniels’ mother testifiеd she give dropped off both Driskell and her son at a located at stop sign Maple Heights, where she said Daniels lived with his wife.
Several after the Daniels’ mother went to the days robbery, police video, station and viewed the surveillance that she came explaining forward because she heard there was a rеward and wanted to out help clerk, the convenience store who was her friend. The mother identi- fied Driskell as the robber but did not tell that her son initially However, was the other in the video. when police began saw that Daniels and he were Facebook investigating they friends, and called Daniels’ mother and asked her to him they bring in so could talk to him. Police then and that questioned interview was admitted into evidence and for the at trial. played testified he did not search Daniels’ home. leaving Daniels was not arrested until almost five months after the other like man was not When defense counsel — know, gun “right you and mask were never recovered. Driskell tеstified that he did not tell and mask in the woods when he was arrested several months after the crime. behind” the first like attempted came out at the same time or man, to elicit the witness responded, “[n]o, on cross-examination that the second crime, nothing and the lead it was [sic].” right investigator behind each about *3 interview, For thе entire first hour of the Daniels steadfastly denied that he knew who robbed the store and that he vehemently However, knew named Driskell. anyone Quincy eventually admitted that he knew he continued to although deny any involvement in the robbery.
Police their interview with Daniels and his stopped questioned mother about she did not tell them that hеr son was the again why interview, other shown on the video. that second During mother also told for the first time that Driskell had come to her police house after the and that she had Driskell and Daniels robbery given a ride to Police then talked to Daniels and he Maple Heights. again, admitted that Driskell was at his mother’s house that and thаt night she them both a ride and them off at gave dropped together Maple However, Daniels continued to to Heights. steadfastly deny that he had to do with the anything
Daniels testified in his own defense at trial and admitted that he had known Driskell since 2012. He said he to approximately spoke Driskell as he walked him on the into the store but maintained by way that he was not involved in the and said he had no idea Driskell was to rob the store. He also testified he did not know going Driskell went to his mother’s house after the why robbery, except Driskell wanted to them in the crime as opine maybe implicate retribution because Daniels’ mother had rebuffed Driskell’s romantic advances. When asked he lied to for over an hour why during interview, he that he did not want to be a snitch and that explained scared, he was but he stated that he decided to tell the truth because he did not want to into trouble for he did not do. Based get something trial, on this and other evidence at found Daniels assault, as a to the crimе of armed guilty robbery, aggravated of a firearm the commission of a possession felony Daniels’ sole contention on is that the testi appeal accomplice’s was not corroborated. It is true that under mony sufficiently Georgia law, a conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated sоlely Cisneros v. accomplice. (1) (b) OCGA 24-14-8.4 But § circumstantial,
sufficient be it may be and it need not of itself be sufficient to warrant slight, must, however, a conviction of the crime It be inde- charged. This section (1) (b). replaced OCGA 24-4-8 and has been given the same meaning. *4 840
pendent accomplice testimony directly of the and must con- crime, nect the defendant with the or lead to the inference guilty. that he is
(Citation
punctuation
emphasis supplied.)
omitted;
and
Threatt v.
(1) (
Here, Daniels and Driskell entered the store
watched as Driskell brandished a
аt the clerk and reached
accomplice
drawer;
toward the cash
a witness observed the
running
Daniels come
out of the store within seconds of each other
direction;
and continue
in the same
both ran to Daniels’
they caught
together;
mother’s house where
a ride
both
exited Daniels’ mother’s car at thе same location. In addition to the
jury
jury
evidence,
inference the
was allowed to draw from this
the
was further authorized to consider that Daniels lied to
for over
knowing
being
identify
robber,
an hour about
Driskell and
able to
admitting knowing
and even after
it was Driskell who robbed the
store, he continued to withhold the fact that he had seen Driskell
again
E.g.,
(1) (defendant’s
Threatt,
after the crime.
It was for the to decide the of the witnesses and accomplice’s testimony sufficiently corroborated, whether the was necessary particular and, above, as noted it was not that each accomplice’s testimony was corroborated or that the determine standing that evidence alone was sufficient to (1) (b) (even operandi convict Daniels. modus may, by accomplice’s itself, evidence be sufficient to corroborate an testimony identifying participant crime);Rutledge defendant as a in the 275) (2015) (reiterating slight identifying participant the accused as a in the crime necessary). is all that is Our review shows that the evidence outlined above and other evidence at trial was sufficient to autho- charged. Accordingly, rize Daniels’ conviction as a he is not entitled to reversal on this basis. to the crimes *5 Judgment Ellington, J., Dillаrd, Branch, P. Mercier affirmed. Phipps, Peterson, JJ., Miller, J., J., McFadden, concur. P. P. J., dissent. Presiding Judge, dissenting.
MILLER,
right
by jury
justice
to a trial
is a hallmark of our criminal
system
reason,
in America. For this
we are reluctant to interfere with
jury’s
except
verdict
in those limited circumstances in which the
proven
State has not
the elements of the offenses for whiсh the
charged.
charged
party
Here,
defendant is
Daniels was
as a
to a
Georgia
crime, and it is well established under
law that a defendant
party
solely
cannot be convicted as a
to a crime based
on the
testimony
accomplice.
uncorroborated
of an
Threatt v.
293 Ga.
(1) (
[t]o accomplice, there must be facts or cir- independently cumstances, which, in themselves and of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant guilty with the crime or lead to the inference that he is (Footnote emphasis supplied.) omitted; Chandler v. (1) (714 597) (2011). Although corroborаting 86, 87 evi “may slight,”
dence
be circumstantial
it
be
evidence that
[and]
only corroborates the timeline and details of the crimes is not
Taylor
sufficient.
App. 141, 142
(1) (a) (
Shumake v. Ga. The evidence here showed that Daniels entered the convenience buy cigarette. later, store to one About ten seconds Driskell enterеd. talking register, While Daniels and the cashier were at the Driskell pulled pulled gun, pointed face, his mask over his out a it at the put cashier. Daniels his hands in the air and ran from the store. *6 842 Notably, eyewitness followed,
Driskell about seven seconds later. an who observed the men down the street testified that did appear running together. not they to be When interviewed suspect
did not consider him to be a and in fact did not consider suspect him to be a knowing even after he made inconsistent statements about Driskell the interview. testimony only planned
Driskell’s was the evidence that Daniels robbery, provided weapon disposed mask, the or of those independent most, items in the woods after the At evi chronology dence corroborates the and details of the crimes Driskell participation opposed committed, but none of it shows Dan iels’s as presence.5 Taylor, supra, (2); his mere see also Nix v. Ga.App. (211SE2d 26) (1974) (defendant’s State, 417, 419 133 actions accomplice’s testimony chronology еvents, corroborated as to of directly indirectly guilt). did not or substantiate defendant’s independent corroborating Here, there is no evidence and there- guilt fore the issue of Daniels’s should not have been to a jury.6 (225 281) (1976) (re- Hill v. 833-834 SE2d versing accomplice’stestimony convictions that were based on because “corroborating merely evidence must do more than cast on the defen- grave suspicion guilt”) (citations omitted); dant a Gilmore App. (1) (d) (726 584) (2012) (co-defendant’s 91-92 uncorroborated that defendant was involved in home conviction); invasions was insufficient to sustain Black v. 155 (272 762) (1980) (reversing Ga. conviction where no accomplice’s testimony evidence corroborated that defendant was burglary). Instead, case, involved in in this the trial court should have granted Daniels’s motion for a directed verdict when it was clear at independent the close of the State’s case that there was no rating corrobo- evidence to establish that Daniels was a to the сrimes. Accordingly, this Court should reverse Daniels’s convictions. I Presiding Judge Phipps Judge am authorized to state that join McFadden in this dissent.
from the modus
corroborated the
evidence.
as an
accomplice
It is
326) (2016),
possible
Supreme
operandi
after the
accomplice’s testimony.
does not
that Daniels’s conduct after the
Court of
of several
fact,
require
Georgia’s
but he was not
a different conclusion. In
burglaries,
recent decision in Cisneros v.
Here there is no such
charged
as well as
with that crime.
would have
independent
from the others
supported
independent
Decided November Reconsideration dismissed Decembеr 2016. appellant. Jefferson, Debra K. for
Layla Attorney, McGinley, Zon, H. District Randal M. Patrick A. Najjar, Attorneys, appellee. Assistant District for
A16A1090. GEORGE v. HERCULES REAL ESTATE
SERVICES, INC. 81) Judge. DOYLE,Chief George premises liability against Derrick filed a action Hercules (“Hercules”), manager apartment Services, Real Estate Inc. ofthe complex George by in which lived when he was shot unknown George neg- assailants ligence, a home invasion. asserted claims for punitive damages. nuisance, and Hercules answered and unpaid filed a counterclaim for rent and other fees. The trial court granted summary judgment George’s to Hercules as to all of claims George appeals. сounterclaim, and as to Hercules’s For the follow, reasons that we affirm.
Summary judgment proper genuine is when there is no judgment issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to (c). as a matter of law. OCGA 9-11-56 A de novo standard applies appeal grant summary of review to an from a judgment, evidence, and we view the аnd all reasonable light it, conclusions and inferences drawn from in the favorable to the nonmovant.1 most George apart- viewed, So the record shows that moved into an 11,2011, ment in The Villas at Lakewood in November 2010. On June George’sapartment burglarized home, while he was not the hours of was between midnight response burglary, and 2:00 a.m. In to the repaired George’s damaged Hercules front door and installed a metal burglar guard, locked, which made the door more secure when engage apartment complex also made it difficult to also had an alarm the deadbolt. The system per day that was monitored 24 hours panic including George’s. unit, included a front-door button in each 1 Matjoulis Integon Corp., Gen. Ins.