Marilyn Heath a/k/a Marilyn Council appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding her guilty of robbery *595 by use of force in violation of OCGA § 16-8-40 (a) (1). For the following reasons, we affirm.
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The victim testified that Heath cаme to the door of her house and rang the doorbell. When the victim opened the door, Heath told the victim that she was selling a cоat and some CDs, but the victim told Heath she was not interested in buying any of the items. The victim did not invite Heath into her house, but Heath nevertheless cаme into the house saying that her heart was racing and she had to sit down. As Heath came inside the house, she knocked the victim down acrоss a couch and onto the floor. The victim testified that, because of her weakened physical condition, she struggled to get up from the floor. According to the victim, after she struggled for a couple of minutes to get up from the floor, Heath reached into the viсtim’s purse, which was on the couch, took $500 in cash and some credit cards out of the purse, and left the house. When the victim was finally ablе to get up, she called 911 and reported the theft. The victim later identified Heath from a photographic lineup arranged by pоlice. Heath testified and admitted that she went to the victim’s house to sell some items, but denied that she knocked the victim down or took anything from the victim.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict.
Parker v. State,
2. During cross-examination, defensе counsel asked a police officer to explain why an oral statement given by Heath had not been reduced to writing or signed by Heath, and the officer responded that, “I hadn’t gotten to that because she had lawyered up or she had requested an attorney at that point.” Heath claims that this testimony improperly commented on her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Since Heath raised no objection at trial, this claim was waived.
Newton v. State,
3. Heath claims that the State impermissibly injected evidence of her character into the trial on two occasions. On the first occasion, a police officer testified during the State’s case that, when he put together a photographic lineup for the victim, he located a photo
*596
graph of Heath where “she had been booked” under another name. A reference to the fact that a prior photograph of a defendant existed where “he was booked in before” did not placе the defendant’s character into issue.
Fulton v. State,
4. Heath contends that the trial court erred by аdmitting evidence of her prior convictions for impeachment purposes under OCGA § 24-9-84.1 because: (1) the prosecutor did not examinе her regarding the convictions; (2) the convictions were more than ten years old and the trial court did not specifically rule that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect; and (3) she was not given written notice of the State’s intent to use the convictions. See OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (a) (2), (b). Because Heath raised none of these objections at trial, these claims present nothing for appellate review.
5. Heath contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the various methods by which robbery could be committed in OCGA § 16-8-40 when the indictment chаrged that she committed robbery by only one of the methods.
The indictment charged that Heath committed the offense of robbery by use of fоrce by knocking the victim down. But the trial court instructed the jury that robbery could be committed by all three of the methods set forth in OCGA § 16-8-40 (a), to wit: (1) “by use of fоrce”; (2) “by intimidation by the use of threat or coercion, or by placing such person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury to himself or to another”; or (3) “by sudden snatching.” “It is error to charge the jury that a crime may be committed by alternative methods, when the indictment charges that it was committed by one specific method.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Pettway v. State,
there is a reasonable possibility that the jury convicted thе defendant of the commission of a crime in a manner not *597 charged in the indictment, then the conviction [violates the defendant’s due рrocess rights] because of a fatal variance between the proof at trial and the indictment returned by the grand jury.
(Punctuation omitted.)
Childs v. State,
6. The trial court did not err by failing to give Heath’s requested instruction on the lesser included offense of theft by taking. All the State’s evidence showеd the completed offense of robbery by use of force, and Heath testified that she committed no offense at all. Because all the evidence showed either the completed offense of robbery by use of force or no offense, there was no evidence to support an instruction on the lesser included offense of theft by taking.
Huckeba v. State,
Judgment affirmed.