After a jury trial, David Raybon was convicted of aggravated child molestation and child molestation. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his counsel failed to move for a demurrer on his indictment in connection with the child molestation count. We disagree, and affirm.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish, pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 1 that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient perfоrmance was prejudicial to his defense. 2 In reviewing a trial court’s determination regarding a claim оf ineffective assistance of counsel, we uphold the court’s factual findings unless they are cleаrly erroneous, and review the court’s legal conclusions de novo. 3
Raybon complains that trial сounsel did not move for a demurrer on the count that alleged that, during a certain period of time, he committed child molestation by “hav[ing] sexual intercourse with [K. S.], a child under 16 years of age, with intent to satisfy the sexual desires of said accused.” He argues that this count of the indictment was subject to demurrer because the allegations therein also could have constituted felony statutory rape,
4
a conviction for which he asserts could have subjected him to a different
“An accused may challenge the suffiсiency of an indictment by filing a general or special demurrer. A general demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the substance of the indictment, whereas a special demurrer challenges the sufficiency of thе form of the indictment.” 5 An indictment is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer
if an accused would be guilty of the crime charged if the facts as alleged in the indictment are taken as true[;] . . . however, if an accused can admit to all of the facts charged in the indictment and still be innоcent of a crime, the indictment is insufficient and is subject to a general demurrer. 6
An indictment is sufficient to withstand а special demurrer if
it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiеntly apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other рroceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction. 7
The alleged child molestаtion occurred when Raybon was in his early twenties and the victim, K. S., was 11 to 12 years old. Child molestation is committеd when a person “[d]oes any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.” 8 The allegation in the child molestation count that Raybon had sexual intercourse with a child undеr 16, with the intent to satisfy his sexual desires, contained the elements of the offense of child molestation. 9 Moreover, the child molestation count apprised Raybon of the charge against him, and when and how it was committed. Accordingly, the indictment was sufficient to withstand a special demurrer. 10 And Raybon could not have admitted to the facts charged and still be innocent of child molestation; thus the indictment was sufficient tо withstand a general demurrer. 11
Citing the rule of lenity, Raybon argues that the child molestation count of the indictment nevertheless was subject to demurrer. “The rule of lenity applies when a statute, or statutes, establishes, or establish, different punishments for the same offense, аnd provides that the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant, who will then receive the lesser punishment.” 12 But Raybon has provided no authority, and we have found none, for the proposition that the rule of lenity сould subject to demurrer an otherwise sufficient indictment. 13
Because the indictment was sufficient to withstand demurrеr,
14
the failure of Raybon’s
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Strickland v. Washington,
Conaway v. State,
Suggs v. State,
See OCGA § 16-6-3 (a) (a person commits the offense of statutory rape whеn he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her sрouse).
State v. Corhen,
Id. at 497 (citation omitted); see
Lowe v. State,
Corhen, supra (citations omitted).
OCGA § 16-6-4 (a) (1).
See
Maynard v. State,
See Corhen, supra at 501 (4).
See Lowe, supra; Corhen, supra.
Banta v. State,
Cf. id. at 618 (2) (where single act, as factual mattеr, violates more than one penal statute, defendant may he prosecuted for more than оne crime; the injustice to be avoided in that circumstance is
sentencing
the defendant for more than one crime following his conviction of multiple crimes; this injustice is avoided through merger, not application of rule of lenity);
Falagian v. State,
See Corhen, supra.
See
Jackson v. State,
May, supra.