Garrett v. State

One of the defendant's aggravated assault convictions should have merged with another aggravated assault conviction, which involved the exact same conduct with the same victim.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Willie Frank Garrett was convicted of several crimes in connection with an altercation with peace officers while he was incarcerated at the Floyd County jail. On appeal, he contends two of the counts should have been merged into a third for the purpose of sentencing. Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence shows that on July 9, 2004, Garrett was upset with Deputy Chris Hall and he became abusive and threatened to harm Hall. Hall escorted Garrett back to his cell by the arm, and Garrett continued to curse and threaten Hall. For safety reasons, Hall and two other deputies tried to restrain Garrett so that he could be taken to solitary confinement. During that effort, Garrett got Hall in a “bear-hug” which “cut the air off of his breathing.” Over Garrett’s resistance, the deputies got handcuffs on one of Garrett’s arms. Garrett then struck Hall in the face with the handcuffs and further attacked Hall before deputies were able to restrain him. Hall was injured on his face, head, chest, arms, and knees.

Garrett was tried by a jury and found guilty on seven counts of criminal conduct. He contends that both Count 3 —aggravated assault —and Count 6 —obstruction of an officer —should be merged into Count 4 —aggravated assault upon a peace officer —because they were all proven with the same facts. This argument implicates the Blockburger “required evidence” test: the “required evidence” test . . . applies strictly within the context of determining whether multiple convictions are precluded because one of the crimes was “established by proof of the same or less than all the facts” that were required to establish the other crime under OCGA § 16-1-6 1. Citation omitted, emphasis in original. Stepp v. State , 286 Ga. 556, 557 690 SE2d 161 2010 contrasting certain “additional statutory provisions concerning prohibitions against multiple convictions for closely related offenses”, quoting Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 636 SE2d 530 2006. See also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299, 304 52 SC 180, 76 LE 306 1932.

Garrett v. State

One of the defendant's aggravated assault convictions should have merged with another aggravated assault conviction, which involved the exact same conduct with the same victim.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report