Antonio Andrette Sands was charged with eleven counts of various sexual offenses against four boys. A jury found him guilty on all counts, his amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. In three enumerations of error, he asserts the general grounds, complains of the introduction of a similar transaction, and contends the trial court erred in admitting a videotaped forensic interview of one of the victims. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. We first address the general grounds. Sands’s enumeration of error complains only that “the conviction of the Defendant of the crime of Sexual Battery is not supported by adequate evidence to overcome the presumption of his innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In his argument, he goes beyond the single count of aggravated sexual battery to argue that the evidence was insufficient on all counts, but cites no legal authority in his perfunctory, two-page argument. Court of Appeals Rule 25 a.
Regardless, we find the evidence sufficient to uphold the convictions on all counts under the standard established in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. Accord Hammontree v. State , 283 Ga. App. 736, 737 1 642 SE2d 412 2007 victim’s testimony alone sufficient to sustain conviction for child molestation. The entire argument on appeal consists of Sands’s assertions that the victims were “troubled” and “known to tell lies.” But “on appeal, the jury, not this Court, is tasked with determining witness credibility, and it was authorized to resolve any credibility issues against” Sands. Citation omitted. Fogerty v. State , 304 Ga. App. 546, 547 1 696 SE2d 496 2010.
