Edward Robinson appeals his conviction for felony theft by shoplifting, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence. We neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.Reese v. State , 270 Ga. App. 522, 523 607 SE2d 165 2004. So viewed, the record shows that a K-Mart supervisor stopped Robinson as he tried to leave the store through a door reserved for incoming customers with a cart full of merchandise. When the supervisor asked Robinson for a receipt, he could not produce one, but claimed that his mother had the receipt. The supervisor then told Robinson that he could not take the merchandise out of the store without a receipt and brought the cart to the service desk. As Robinson retreated into the store, the supervisor called the store manager and reported that Robinson had been trying to steal some merchandise. She pointed out Robinson to the manager after Robinson exited the store. The manager called the police who arrested Robinson as he walked down a nearby street. Police brought Robinson back to the store where he was identified by the supervisor as the perpetrator of the theft by shoplifting.
1. Though he does not raise the general grounds, we have reviewed the record, and hold that the evidence sufficed to sustain Robinson’s conviction. See OCGA § 16-8-14 defining theft by shoplifting; Williams v. State , 261 Ga. App. 176, 176-178 1 582 SE2d 141 2003, overruled on other grounds by Patrick v. State , 284 Ga. 472 644 SE2d 309 2007; Mathis v. State , 194 Ga. App. 498, 498-499 1 391 SE2d 130 1990.