By accusation, the State of Georgia charged Jessie Benton with theft by conversion, OCGA § 16-8-4 a. Assisted by counsel, Benton reached an agreement with the prosecutor to plead guilty. After the prosecutor described the factual basis for Benton’s guilty plea, the Superior Court of Bibb County determined that the facts as alleged could not support a conviction for theft by conversion because there was no allegation that Benton had agreed to make a specified disposition of the subject property, as required to prove that offense.1 Based on this determination, the trial court rejected Benton’s guilty plea and sua sponte dismissed the accusation. The State appeals pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 a 1,2 contending that the trial court erred in finding that there was no factual basis that Benton had agreed to make a specified disposition of the subject property. For the reasons explained below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. “Where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts.” Vansant v. State , 264 Ga. 319, 320 1 443 SE2d 474 1994.
The State charged that, on or about July 30, 2008, Benton, after having lawfully obtained property, to wit: a 1991 Toyota pickup truck, with a value in excess of $100.00, under an agreement to make a specified application of said vehicle, did knowingly convert said property to his own use in violation of such agreement by failing to pay as directed by the agreement and reporting the property stolen. At the guilty plea hearing, the prosecutor described the facts underlying the accusation as follows: “Mr. Benton came to an agreement with his boss to purchase this 1991 Toyota pickup truck. He took that pickup truck and never made any payment on it, and it was actually recovered in Houston County with some other people driving it.” The prosecutor explained that, at some point, Benton’s employer realized that Benton was never going to make the payments and told Benton to return the truck instead. The trial court determined that the State had failed to identify any legal obligation to make a specified disposition of the truck and, therefore, that the State was seeking to impose criminal sanctions for Benton’s failure to pay a debt, which is forbidden by Georgia’s Constitution.3
