Christopher Frazier was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault OCGA § 16-5-21; armed robbery OCGA § 16-8-41; hijacking a motor vehicle OCGA § 16-5-44.1; theft by receiving stolen property OCGA § 16-8-7; and criminal damage to property OCGA § 16-7-23. During the trial, he also pled guilty to fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer OCGA § 40-6-395 a; financial transaction card theft OCGA § 16-9-31; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony OCGA § 16-11-106. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial, and this appeal followed.1 On appeal, Frazier argues that 1 his convictions for hijacking a motor vehicle, armed robbery, and theft by receiving stolen property are mutually exclusive; 2 the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for theft by receiving stolen property; 3 trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments on his right to silence; and 4 trial counsel was deficient for advising him to plead guilty to the fleeing or attempting to elude offense because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction on this charge. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse Frazier’s convictions for hijacking a motor vehicle and theft by receiving, and we remand for a new trial on these charges. We also reverse Frazier’s conviction for fleeing and eluding because trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for advising him to plead guilty where the evidence was insufficient to support that charge. We affirm the convictions for aggravated assault, armed robbery, criminal damage to property, financial transaction card theft, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
We view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the verdict, and no longer presume the defendant is innocent. We do not weigh the evidence or decide the witnesses’ credibility, but only determine if the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. We construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence most strongly in favor of the jury’s verdict.
