*1 199 jury, certainly before the could create inference matter, If responsible. testimony prove was tends to fact that it falls short of actually proving testimony’s it does affect the Smith, supra; McClain, relevance. Jones v. Ga. App. Harris v. 152 447 233) (1979). Further, relevancy even where of evidence doubtful, to, is it should its weight by, be submitted determined Roberts, jury. Newman 157 Co., Massee v. Farm State Mut. Auto. Ins.
3. There no merit to the trial contention that court erred in for denying motion directed verdict. directed verdict is proper only where no conflict the evidence as to any material together issue the evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions or particular inferences therefrom demands a (a) 81A-150); verdict. OCGA 9-11-50 Barber v. Atlas Pools, Concrete The trial court submitted the case jury. reversed for remanded new trial. Banke and
Cárley, JJ., concur. '
Richard D. Phillips, T. Leaphart, Alvin
65990. DAWSON v. THE STATE.
Deen, Jimmy Dawson was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced years imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that because his warrantless arrest and the warrantless search of his residence were illegal, the trial court denying erred his motion to certain evidence obtained as a result approximately 15,
At a.m. 3:00 on March the clerk at a Zippy Mart in Swainsboro was gunpoint by $115 robbed of at a black male, by old, described the clerk as approximately years five feet tall, eight beige windbreaker, trousers, inches attired in a maroon shoes, tennis mostly by with his head and face covered a knitted cap. police The retreat, clerk notified the after robber’s within a few minutes the sheriff arrived.
The
noticed
prints
tire tracks and shoe
in a parking area
near
Zippy
Mart.
Because the clerk’s
him
reminded
recently
he had
whom
Dawson,
Michael
to the residence
proceeded
concerning
burglary,
dealt
Dawson,
Michael
approximately
residence
officers reached
house, they
and,
approaching
robbery,
before
minutes after
hot,
driveway in the
the automobile
engine observed
*2
near the
discovered
those
tracks matched
vehicle’s tire
that the
and
to the
brother came
or his
appellant
Either the
crime.
of the
scene
they were
that
explanation
the sheriffs
door, and,
following
permission
the
robbery, granted
an armed
investigating
to
a hall
proceeded down
house. The officers
search the
to enter and
brothers,
similarly explained to
and
by the two
the bedroom
requested
and
investigation
their
the nature of
other brother
the
the
to
This brother consented
premises.
the
to search
permission
or
No force
the
being aroused so did
upon
any mental
not detect
the sheriff did
applied, and
threats were
suspicion that someone
stated
despite
incapacity,
evening.
earlier
wine he drank
something
some
put
which matched
appellant’s clothing
The search revealed
pistol
robber, money, and 25 calibre
by the
of that worn
description
At this
by the robber.
weapon
of the
wielded
fit the
that
arrest. Held:
appellant under
officially placed
point,
under a
arrest “either
may legally
officer
law enforcement
in his
if
is committed
a warrant
the offense
warrant or without
knowledge,
if the offender
his immediate
presence or within
that
to believe
escape,
probable
if the officer has
cause
endeavoring to
committed,
if
for other causes
or
family
of
violence... has been
an act
to
officer
judicial
for want of a
likely
justice
there is
to be failure
27-207).
(a) (Code
we
Ann.
While
issue a warrant.” OCGA 17-4-20
§
§
cause
officers lacked
appellant
agree with the
residence, a warrantless
they
approached
first
to arrest when
money
gun
discovery
clothing,
arrest was
search.
robbery, assuming
legal
a
him to the armed
that connected
State,
invalid, Hill v.
arrest is
illegal
incidental
to an
Because a search
(230
336) (1976);
State,
Kelly v.
App. 121
SE2d
(198
910)
presented by this
(1973),
primary question
SE2d
actually occurred.
concerns when the arrest
being
to
if
submits
complete
“person
An
arrest
allowed his
yields
being
condition of
under arrest or
on
considered
officer...” OCGA
the discretion of the
freedom of locomotion under
(205
27-201);
Rogers
v.
17-4-1
testimony at the
901)
retrospective
Despite the sheriffs
allowed the
would not have
hearing
probably
that he
suppression
they
conducted
premises
have left the
appellant or his brother to
exercising,
is no
officers
evidence of either the
verbally
physically, any
or
control over
freedom or
arrest,
submitting
considered under
until
facts,
clothing
search revealed the
firearm. Under these
we
find that the
that
it
upon
discovery,
arrest occurred
and was lawful.
seized,
The articles
along
engine
with the observations about
heat
appellant’s vehicle,
certainly
tire tracks
created
arrest,
prevented
cause
and the warrantless arrest
v.
(258
See Creamer
likely
Ga.
justice.
failure of
Probable
and a
are
for a search
required
cause
warrant
not
seizure which
v.
is conducted
consent. Schneckloth
854)
Hall
“In situations where the have some evidence of illicit activity, lack cause to arrest or a search only valid consent be the means of obtaining important and reliable supra evidence.” Schneckloth v. at 227. represents This case example situation, a clear such but we find that valid, consent search was and the effects discovered thereby supplied cause which the warrantless arrest. The trial court properly therefore denied the motion to suppress. Banke, J., Carley, J., affirmed. concurs. concurs
specially. Merrill, Jr.,
Charles B. Malone, Richard A. Attorney, District Judge, concurring specially. Carley, I agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. only in denying enumeration of error is that the trial court erred suppress motion to during evidence obtained review of the evidence adduced in connection with “[A] motion to ‘totality demonstrates that under circumstances,’ clearly trial court was authorized to find that consent voluntarily given. the search was [Cit.]” Suddeth v.
Appellant’s objections to the search having resolved on consent, the basis of error, and there no other enumeration of appellant’s conviction must be affirmed. THE
65353. HARRIS v. STATE.
McMurray, forgery Defendant was indicted and convicted of two counts of in degree and one count of financial transaction card theft. appointed His counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel California, to Anders v. U. S. 738 493), stating transcript that after a careful review of the record and appeal wholly counsel believes an of this case to be frivolous. See 406). Bethay v. accordance Bethay v. supra, counsel the motion to withdraw as counsel raising points attached a brief of law which counsel arguably supporting appeal considered as defendant’s and has copy furnished to his client a indigent the brief order to allow the any points addition, defendant to raise he chooses to raise. In Bethay required by supra, fully we have examined the record transcript and determined independently whether there are meritorious errors of law. We are in agreement points that none of the *4 any merit, raised has and our independent examination fails to disclose errors requiring a reversal of defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, we granted permission to counsel to withdraw. The defendant having options by notified of this action and of his reason responded by thereof has proa se raising brief several issues. Held: general grounds Defendant’s brief raises the for motion for sufficiency
new trial as to the of the evidence. As to the two counts of forgery in degree, positively defendant was identified as the attempted individual who checks. forged to cash stolen and