An officer with the Department visited Litman's property and observed 50-60 vehicles in the backyard, some of which were in various states of disrepair as a result of rust, fire, lack of tires, flat tires, and weeds growing through their fenders or hoods. See Carter v. State, 259 Ga. App. 798, 798-799 (1) ( 578 SE2d 508) (2003). On April 6, 2007, the officer returned to Litman's residence and cited him for violating several provisions of the Dougherty County Code of Ordinances.
Davis v. State, 273 Ga. 14, 15 ( 537 SE2d 663) (2000).Carter v. State, 259 Ga. App. 798, 802 (3) ( 578 SE2d 508) (2003).Judgment affirmed.
Here, the record shows that both Joyner and his counsel put forth the theory of criminal trespass: Joyner testified that "I should have left" and "I realize I had no business at [the victim's] house" but denied that he intended to commit a theft or sexual assault. His counsel argued this as well. Clearly, Joyner's position was that he knew he should not have entered the house but did so without the intent to commit a theft or rape, and this position was presented to the trial court. Joyner "bears the burden of showing error affirmatively by the record," (footnote omitted) Carter v. State, 259 Ga. App. 798, 802 (3) ( 578 SE2d 508) (2003), and he has not shown that the trial court failed to consider criminal trespass as a lesser included offense. This is particularly true in view of his testimony and counsel's argument as well as the trial court's explicit statement that it believed the victim's testimony over that of Joyner.