A jury convicted Kenneth Allen Boggs of robbery, and the trial court denied his amended motion for new trial. On appeal, Boggs contends that 1 there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; 2 there was a fatal variance between the victim identified in the indictment and the victim identified at trial; 3 his constitutional right to confrontation was violated because the victim did not testify; 4 the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him concerning whether he had ever been arrested for unrelated offenses or dishonorably discharged from the military; and 5 his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the following reasons, we affirm. 1. Following a criminal conviction, the defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. Gordon v. State , 294 Ga. App. 908 1 670 SE2d 533 2008. This Court determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979, and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence are for the jury to resolve. As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the state’s case, we must uphold the jury’s verdict. Citations and punctuation omitted. Rankin v. State , 278 Ga. 704, 705 606 SE2d 269 2004.
Viewed in this manner, the evidence showed that in the early morning hours of September 1, 2007, two officers with the Savannah-Chatham Metro Police Department were riding on patrol in downtown Savannah. They observed two young males running across the street away from a man in “a crumbled heap” on the sidewalk with his hands over his face. The man on the sidewalk had a deep laceration above his right eye and “his face was pretty much swollen.” The two males running away from the injured man were later identified as Rico Sanchez and Kenneth Boggs.