A Tattnall County jury found William Knight guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 (a). He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the prosecutor’s argument to the jury was improper, and that the prosecutor “tainted” the court’s sentence by attempting to introduce evidence of his prior convictions. For the following reasons, we affirm.
1. Knight argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction because, according to him, the testimony of the 13-year-old victim was incredible and “not worthy of belief.”
When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or her conviction, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.)
Jackson v. Virginia,
In support of his insufficient evidence argument, Knight notes that there were no other witnesses to the molestation and that the victim did not tell her parents about the molestation, but instead, told a friend at school the next day. 1 He also points to evidence that, in his opinion, shows the victim had a motive to lie and demonstrates that the victim’s testimony was “more than a little suspect.” While characterizing this case as presenting a “classic he-said[,] she said” scenario, he argues that the jury was not authorized to accept the victim’s testimony over evidence showing that she may have been *368 lying. Thus, his insufficiency argument is based entirely on his assertion that, because he and the victim were the only people present during the alleged molestation, and because the victim lacked credibility, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.
It is axiomatic, however, that it is the function of the jury, not this Court, to judge the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.
Jackson v. Virginia,
Moreover, as Knight acknowledges, the victim’s testimony alone is generally sufficient to establish the elements of child molestation.
Hammontree v. State,
2. Knight contends that the prosecutor made improper closing arguments to the jury, including statements that mischaracterized the evidence presented. The trial transcript shows, however, that Knight failed to raise a single objection during the prosecutor’s closing argument, nor did he raise this issue in his motion for new trial.
“Issues and objections not raised in the trial court and ruled on by the trial court are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” (Footnote omitted.)
West v. State,
3. Knight contends that the State “tainted” the trial court’s sentence by attempting to introduce evidence of his four prior felony drug convictions during sentencing without providing proper notice of its intent to introduce such evidence. He also claims that the prosecutor’s argument during sentencing was improper.
Pretermitting whether Knight met his burden for demonstrat
*369
ing error or even preserved these alleged errors for review,
2
the trial court’s sentence of fourteen years imprisonment, with six to serve, was well within the statutory limits for a child molestation conviction. See OCGA § 16-6-4 (b) (1) (authorizes a sentence for a first conviction of child molestation of between five and twenty years imprisonment). “We will not review for legal error any sentence which is within the statutory limits.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Brown v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The friend gave the note to a teacher, who in turn gave it to a school counselor, who testified at trial.
“It is well-established that there is a presumption that [a] sentence was correctly imposed, and the burden of showing that a sentence was not correctly imposed is with the party who asserts its impropriety.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
State v. Freeman,