Robert Thornton was indicted on four counts of theft by taking1 Counts I, II, VI, and VII, and a single count each of entering an automobile with intent to commit theft2 Count III, criminal damage to property in the second degree3 Count IV, and making false statements4 Count V. Following a jury trial, Thornton was convicted on all counts, and he now appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial. Thornton asserts: 1 that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge and acquittal on Counts I through IV of the indictment on speedy trial grounds; 2 that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the standard for convicting a criminal defendant based solely on circumstantial evidence; 3 that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions on Counts I though VI of the indictment; 4 that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and 5 that the trial court erred in failing to sever Count VII of the indictment for trial. Finding that the State failed to comply with Thornton’s statutory speedy-trial demand as to Counts I through IV of the indictment, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying his motion for discharge and acquittal of those charges, we reverse Thornton’s convictions as to those counts. Additionally, because the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for making false statements, we also reverse Thornton’s conviction on Count V. We affirm, however, Thornton’s convictions on Counts VI and VII, finding that sufficient evidence supported the same and that evidence also supported the trial court’s finding that Thornton did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, in light of our reversal of Thornton’s conviction on Counts I through V, we find that he was not harmed by the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever Count VII for trial.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Drammeh v. State ,5 the evidence shows that at approximately 4:00 a.m. on March 29, 2004, officers with the LaGrange Police Department responded to reports of a potential automobile accident in downtown LaGrange. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers observed a beer delivery truck crashed into some nearby woods. The truck, which was unoccupied, was identified as belonging to Gusto Brands, Inc., a local beverage distributor whose warehouse was located a short distance from the scene. The Gusto Brands general manager was therefore summoned to the scene.
