Dеron Ricks appeals from his convictions of armed robbery and two counts of false imрrisonment.
1. Ricks asserts the trial court erroneously found that his two prior robbery convictions are sufficiently similar to the current armed robbery to be admissible as similar transaction evidence. We agree. Before evidence of independent offenses may be admitted, the State must show, among other things, that there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the indеpendent offense and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.
Williams v. State,
The State showed the two prior offenses were robberies. However, the circumstances of those prior crimes wеre very different from the facts of the present case. In one of the prior robberies, Ricks and
*667
another man accosted a woman and a man walking on a busy street by pushing the couple and grabbing the woman’s purse. In the other incident, the victim was getting into her car in a parking deck when Ricks snatched her necklace. Thus, unlike the current armed robbery, which took place in the home of a victim who knows Ricks and lasted at least thirty minutes, the two prior сrimes were quick, unarmed robberies by snatching with victims who did not know Ricks and who were in public places. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that the prior and present crimes are of the same sort does not render evidence of the prior crimes admissible. See
Wimberly v. State,
Moreover, the evidence of Ricks’ guilt is not sо overwhelming that we can hold the error was harmless. The State’s evidence identifying Ricks as the perpetrator of the crimes charged consisted of Curry’s testimony, the testimony of her son and two friends that Curry had told them Ricks was the perpetrator, and a police officеr’s testimony that Curry picked Ricks out of a photographic lineup. Conversely, in support оf his defenses of misidentification and alibi, Ricks testified that he was at his grandmother’s house at the time of the crimes. Ricks’ mother and grandmother supported his defense by also testifying that he was with them at the house during the time this incident occurred. Consequently, as to the ultimate issue of whether Riсks was the perpetrator, this case amounted to a credibility contest between Curry’s identification of Ricks and the sworn testimony of Ricks and his witnesses that he could not have committеd the crimes charged. “It cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the erroneous admission of the ‘other crimes’ evidence did not have any prejudicial effect on the jury’s determination as to [Ricks’] credibility and, consequently, on the jury’s determination as to his guilt.”
Higginbotham v. State,
2. Ricks objects that the court erred in allowing the State to improperly use the prior robberies to place his character in issue, in letting the jury see both sentencing information regarding the prior robberies and other charges listed on the prior indictments, in permitting a state witness to place his chаracter in evidence, and in allowing the
*668
prosecutor to make improper clоsing arguments to the jury. Ricks concedes that none of these objections was raised in the trial court. Consequently, these objections were waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See
Shutt v. State,
3. Ricks claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise any of the objections listed in Division 2. Because of our holding in Division 1, we need not address this claim.
Judgment reversed.