A Clayton County jury convicted Richard Dale Lavigne of two counts of theft by deception OCGA § 16-8-3, two counts of theft by conversion OCGA § 16-8-4, and four counts of violating the Georgia Securities Act of 1973 OCGA § 10-5-12. Lavigne filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Lavigne now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in i not charging the jury on OCGA § 10-5-12 d 5; and ii failing to merge the theft by conversion counts and the securities violations counts. Finding that the theft by conversion counts did not merge with the securities violations counts as a matter of law or fact, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict Drammeh v. State , 285 Ga. App. 545, 546 1 646 SE2d 742 2007, the evidence shows that in July 2004, Lavigne approached Bob Zimmerman about a real estate investment proposal whereby Lavigne’s companies would purchase “scab” lots, i.e., lots that were originally built out in subdivisions, but were the least desirable and left vacant by the builder. Thereafter, Lavigne’s companies would buy houses and move them from other locations on to the scab lots, and remodel and refurbish them. Zimmerman testified that once the houses were completed, Lavigne’s company would list the houses for sale, and the profits from the sale would then be divided equally between Lavigne’s companies and Zimmerman, as an investor. Zimmerman agreed to invest $65,000 in such venture, believing it to be a prudent investment, and the two entered into an agreement for Lavigne to purchase a lot located on Gloucester Court “Gloucester” in Clayton County as well as a home to be moved on to the lot and subsequently remodeled for resale purposes. At that time, Zimmerman made an initial payment of $20,000. Lavigne had explained to Zimmerman that the vacant lots were viable for building lots, and that houses in the Gloucester neighborhood were selling in the $100,000 to $120,000 range.
Thereafter, Zimmerman made two installment payments to Lavigne’s company, R.D.L. Construction, but later learned that no work had commenced on the Gloucester lot when he drove by the property. Zimmerman testified that he had no knowledge that Lavigne sold the Gloucester lot without a house on it, which Lavigne later admitted.
