Poole v. StatePoole v. State
Lonnie Poole was charged with trafficking methamphetamine
1
and possessing methamphetamine.
2
A Bаrtow County jury found him guilty on both counts. Poole appeals his conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine and by failing to apply the rulе of lenity and sentence him under
*465 Viewed in favor of the judgment, 3 the recоrd shows that police went to Poole’s residence and knocked on the door. When Poole answered the door, the police smelled an odor consistent with manufacturing methamphetamine. With Poole’s permission, the officers cleared thе residence, and while doing so, they observed an electric hotplate and used pH strips. After obtaining a warrant, the poliсe searched Poole’s residence, where they found a glass smoking device, open packages of pseudoephedrine, a heat lamp, a gallon jug filled with liquid, plastic sandwich bags, clear tubing, a microwave oven, lye, latex gloves, denatured alcohol, a Visine bottle, glass plates, razor blades, a syringe, a spoon, a measuring cup, a food procеssor, aluminum foil, and methamphetamine in liquid form. Poole admitted to the police that he smoked, ate, and injected methamphetamine, and he stated that he assumed he had been taken into custody because he had been “cooking.”
Poole wаs charged with trafficking methamphetamine in violation of
1. Poole argues that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on manufacturing methamphetamine (
The complete rule with regard to giving a defendant’s requеsted charge on a lesser included offense is: where the state’s evidence establishes all of the elements of an offense and there is no evidence raising the lesser offense, there is no error in failing to give a charge on the lesser offensе. Where a case contains some evidence, no matter how slight, *466 that shows that the defendant committed a lesser offensе, then the court should charge the jury on that offense. 4
Under
Here, there was evidence that Poole manufactured methamphetamine (as prohibited by
First, there is no relevant distinction between the two statutes with regard to methamphetamine as applied to this case. The sole distinction is that
2. Poole also argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him under
A violation of
As our Supreme Court explains, the principle оf lenity provides that “a penal statute providing two possible grades of punishment or penalty for the same offense (i.e., one as a felony and one as a misdemeanor) is uncertain and the defendant is entitled to the lesser of the two penaltiеs contained in the statute.”
10
The rule of lenity is inapplicable here, where violations of both
the most reasonable interрretation of the legislative intent in enactingOCGA § 16-13-31 (f) (1) was to supplant the general punishment provision ofOCGA § 16-13-30 (b) with a specific and potentially more harsh punishment provision for manufacturing methamphetamine. Here, there is no uncertainty as to which of the two statutes applies. Where a crime is penalized by a special law, the general provisions of the penal code are not applicable. 12
Accordingly, the trial сourt did not err in imposing sentence under
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
See
Short v. State,
(Citation and emphasis omitted.)
Edwards v. State,
See
Richards u. State,
See
Edwards,
See
Wesson,
See
Edwards, 264
Ga. at 133 (failure tо charge lesser included offense harmless);
Celestin v. State,
See
McClellan v. State,
See id.;
Falagian v. State,
Richards,