Appellant was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, and armed robbery and sentenced to consecutive life sentences for malice murder and armed robbery. 1 Appellant and Hong Binh Thai accompanied Sam Vаn Ngo to his apartment in Gainesville, Georgia. The victim, Ca Nguyen, lived with Sam Van Ngo and was watching television in the apartment. Soon after their arrival Sam Van Ngo shot the victim with a .25 caliber automatic weapon of the same modеl and caliber as one owned by appellant. Hong Binh Thai assisted him in putting the body into the car and in disposing of it in the woods. Appellant drove the car on the trip to dispose of the body. Over twelve thousand dollars which the victim had withdrаwn from a savings account was taken from his body by Hong Binh Thai during the drive to the woods. Aftеr disposing of the body they drove to a lake where Sam Van Ngo and Hong Binh Thai thrеw away the murder weapon and washed their hands. Then they returned to Gainesvillе where the appellant stayed in the apartment which he shared with Hong Binh Thai while Hong Binh Thai drove Sam Van Ngo to the Atlanta airport. When Hong Binh Thai returned tо Gainesville he gave appellant two thousand dollars, half of what Sam Vаn Ngo had given him of the stolen money. Appellant was arrested in California some two weeks after the crimes. At the time of his arrest he had thirteen one hundred dollar bills on his person.
1. In his first enumeration of error appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of murder and armed robbery. He insists that he had no knowledge of a plan to murder and rob the victim and that his help in disposing of the body and in driving Sam Van Ngo to the airport was given under duress. However, there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he was a participant in a criminal enterprise which included the murder and robbery of the victim. A person who is a party to the crime as defined by OCGA § 16-2-20 may be found guilty of the crime even though not the actual perpetrator.
Satterfield v. State,
2. Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress the money which was found by California police on appellant’s person. Thе court dismissed the motion as untimely because it was not filed until November 16, 1987, the day оf his trial. Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1 requires that all motions be filed at or before arraignment unless the time is extended by the judge. Further, OCGA § 17-5-30 has been interpreted by this court аs requiring that motions be filed by the time of arraignment.
Waller v. State,
3. The appellant’s final enumeration of error is that since he was not found guilty of felony murder in his first trial, he has beеn subjected to double jeopardy. He is correct in this contention. Howеver, since he was sentenced only for malice murder and armed robbery, thе sentence may stand even though the conviction for felony murder must be revеrsed.
Judgment reversed as to felony murder,
Notes
The crimes were committed December 20, 1985, and defendant wаs convicted October 17,1986. On January 13, 1987, after a notice of appeаl had already been filed, the trial court granted an extraordinary motion for new trial. The original conviction was affirmed in
Tho Van Huynh v. State,