Deal v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. State

    275 Ga. App. 99 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding that defendant abandoned argument regarding charge on lesser included offense, where the defendant "failed to specify how such a charge was supported by the evidence"

    Specifically, the evidence authorized the jury to find that Brown completed the offense of aggravated battery when he hit his wife on the head with the sword, causing a laceration which required stitches, before he began the offense of aggravated assault, when he stabbed his wife in the arms and torso during their struggle on the couch. Further, the evidence authorized the jury to find that Brown completed the offense of aggravated assault before he began the offense of kidnapping with bodily injury by forcing her to the bathroom where he stabbed her on the arms and leg. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not required to merge the offenses for sentencing. Wright v. State, 243 Ga. App. 167, 169 ( 532 SE2d 724) (2000); Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 84 (15) ( 503 SE2d 288) (1998). Judgment affirmed. Smith, P.J., and Adams, J., concur.

  2. Nguyen v. State

    605 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    That a minor reference to Nguyen's incarceration on the instant charge was mentioned at trial did not place his character in issue. Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 82 (8) ( 503 SE2d 288) (1998), citing Holloway v. State, 190 Ga. App. 528, 529 (2) ( 379 SE2d 542) (1989) (A post-arrest mug shot does not suggest prior arrests placing defendant's character in issue.); see also Roaderick v. State, 257 Ga. App. 73 ( 570 SE2d 382) (2002) ("[M]ere mention that a defendant has been in jail falls short of placing his character at issue.

  3. Ramirez v. State

    595 S.E.2d 630 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    See Geiger v. State, 258 Ga. App. 57, 62(3)(d) ( 573 S.E.2d 85) (2002). See Ottis, supra; Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 82 (8) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998). 4. Ramirez argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of sodomy, which was not one of the offenses charged in the indictment.

  4. McConnell v. State

    263 Ga. App. 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 20 times
    Rejecting State's argument that offenses involved separate victims where indictment charged burglary for entering premises d/b/a Bakery Services, Inc., and another count identified victim as owner of bakery individually

    In light of McConnell's failure to present any evidence of jury prejudice at the hearing on his motion for new trial, he has failed to establish harm flowing from counsel's alleged deficiency. See, e.g., Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 82(5) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998); Strickland, supra. (g) McConnell asserts that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object after the trial court informed the jury concerning the circumstances that resulted in the removal of Juror No. 1.

  5. Geiger v. State

    573 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    Therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the remark. Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 82(8) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998). e. Geiger contends he received ineffective assistance because trial counsel did not ask for curative instructions after his sustained objection to the school guidance counselor's statement that "I had felt like [the victim] was not telling me the whole truth the day before, just how upset she got."

  6. Williams v. State

    248 Ga. App. 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that what constitutes serious disfigurement for the purposes of aggravated battery is almost always a question for the jury

    In every aggravated battery based upon a serious disfigurement, including those in which the disfigurement was temporary, the injury inflicted was more than a superficial wound, that is, a scrape, bruise, discoloration, or swelling. E.g.,Baker v. State, 246 Ga. App. at 318 (2) (broken nose, deep lacerations requiring stitches, extensive bruising); Penland v. State, 229 Ga. 256, 271 (1) ( 190 S.E.2d 900) (1972) (massive bruising, cuts, and swelling resulting from head trauma that left the victim incoherent); Ganas v. State, 245 Ga. App. 645, 645-646 (1) (a) (S.E.2d) (2000) (a broken and distended finger); Silvers v. State, 245 Ga. App. at 486 (1) (shattered nasal and sinus bones); Ramsey v. State, 233 Ga. App. 810 (1), 811 ( 505 S.E.2d 779) (1998) (lacerations to face, ear, and neck requiring stitches);Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 84 (15) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998) (multiple, severe blows to the head requiring hospitalization);McClain v. State, 232 Ga. App. 282, 283 (1) ( 502 S.E.2d 266) (1998) (gasoline burns resulting in scarring); Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. at 56-57 (4) (scarring from multiple gunshot wounds). We have found no case upholding an aggravated battery based upon injuries like those C. T. suffered.

  7. Warren v. State

    538 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    See, e.g., Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 784 (9) (a) ( 514 S.E.2d 205) (1999). See Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 81 (4) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998) (where trial court "was able to seat a full panel of jurors untainted by pretrial publicity," there was no showing of actual prejudice). DECIDED AUGUST 31, 2000.

  8. Putnam v. State

    245 Ga. App. 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    Cooke, 230 Ga. App. at 327. Although the better practice in the circumstances presented here would have been to question the jury about its media exposure, see Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 81 (4) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998) (and cases cited therein), the trial judge was in the best position to determine the possible prejudicial impact of the newspaper article in connection with the setting in which the trial was taking place. Further, no prosecutorial misconduct is involved, "and this is a significant factor for appellate consideration."

  9. Veal v. State

    242 Ga. App. 873 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 17 times

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph for that limited purpose with appropriate cautionary instructions. Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 83(9) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998). 5. Veal contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance in two other enumerations. Under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ( 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674) (1984), one asserting his trial counsel's performance was so deficient as to deny him effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment

  10. Maloy v. State

    522 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Deal v. State, 233 Ga. App. 79, 80 (1) ( 503 S.E.2d 288) (1998). In that regard, Maloy's only argument is to repeat in a conclusory fashion that the photo lineup was "impermissibly suggestive."