In the Interest of X. W., 301 Ga. App. 625, 629-630 (3) ( 688 SE2d 646) (2009). See also In the Interest of C. P., supra at 575-576 (sufficient evidence where juvenile wore gang colors, admitted gang membership, and officers opined based on training and experience that alleged acts were committed to further gang activity); Warren v. State, 245 Ga. App. 768, 769 (1) (b) ( 538 SE2d 840) (2000) (sufficient evidence that drive-by shooting was gang activity included officer testimony that blue bandana found at crime scene was a gang symbol). 2. D. M. contends that the disposition for carrying a pistol without a license is void because it was proved by the same facts that established, and is a lesser included offense of, possession of a handgun by a minor.
Davenport v. State, 255 Ga. App. 593, 594-595 (1) ( 565 SE2d 900) (2002).Warren v. State, 245 Ga. App. 768 (1) (a) ( 538 SE2d 840) (2000). Nevertheless, Lopez argues that witness testimony as to whether he was present during the shooting was contradictory and that the testimony of his two alibi witnesses contradicted the eyewitness testimony and showed that he was not involved.
Later, Ford told the police that he did not care who had been shot. Despite Ford's argument to the contrary, this evidence was sufficient to support his convictions as a party to the crimes. See, e.g., Eckman v. State, 274 Ga. 63, 65 (1) ( 548 SE2d 310) (2001); Warren v. State, 245 Ga. App. 768 (1) (a) ( 538 SE2d 840) (2000); Haynes v. State, 199 Ga. App. 288, 289 (1) ( 404 SE2d 585) (1991).Judgment affirmed.