Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Georgia Caselaw:
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources

This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks! Georgia Caselaw
POPE, Judge.
Shoplifting. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Eldridge.
Robert Parker brings this appeal from his conviction of theft by shoplifting; he was sentenced to serve ten years imprisonment. His sole enumeration of error on appeal challenges the imposition of a ten-year sentence upon his indictment and conviction of shoplifting property having a value of less than $100. Held:
In the case at bar, defendant was indicted for theft by shoplifting property valued at less than $100. However, the indictment also listed three prior misdemeanor convictions that defendant had received for shoplifting. Therefore, since defendant was found guilty of the shoplifting offense with which he was charged, he was guilty of a felony, and the trial court was mandated by statute to impose a sentence of not less than one nor more than ten years imprisonment.
2. Defendant contends that two of his prior convictions listed in the indictment were "consolidated for trial" and, thus, must be treated as only one conviction. See OCGA 17-10-7(c). The record discloses that these two convictions were the result of guilty pleas entered on the same date to two separate accusations and that he was sentenced to serve eight months for each conviction, the sentences to be served concurrently. A separate order of sentence was entered on each accusation. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in concluding that these two prior convictions had not been "consolidated for trial" within the meaning of OCGA 17-10-7(c). See Clarke v. State, 167 Ga. App. 402 (306 SE2d 702) (1983); Frazier v. State, 155 Ga. App. 683 (2) (272 SE2d 548) (1980). In light of this holding, any consideration by the trial court of two additional shoplifting convictions not listed in the indictment, for the purpose of imposing felony punishment pursuant to OCGA 16-8-14 (b)(1)(C), was harmless error. However, since these additional convictions, among others, had been made known to defendant prior to trial, the trial court did not err in considering them in aggravation of punishment. See OCGA 17-10-2 (a).
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Thomas W. Hayes, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Kenneth R. Croy, for appellant.
Thursday May 21 19:01 EDT

This site exists because of donors like you.


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!

Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004