Clarence Gilbert Patrick pleaded guilty to shoplifting, and the trial court sentenced him as a recidivist under OCGA § 17-10-7 c.1 In his sole enumeration of error on appeal, Patrick contends that the trial court erred in applying the general recidivist provision in OCGA § 17-10-7 c as opposed to the specific provision for shoplifting contained in OCGA § 16-8-14 b 1 C. For reasons that follow, we affirm. The underlying facts are undisputed. After Patrick was charged with shoplifting, the State filed notice of its intent to seek recidivist punishment under OCGA § 17-10-7 c. The State attached to its notice a print out of Patrick’s criminal history, which showed numerous convictions, including multiple convictions for shoplifting. However, the State did not seek enhanced punishment based upon the shoplifting convictions and instead provided certified copies of three non-shoplifting felonies. The trial court then sentenced Patrick under the general recidivist provisions, using the non-shoplifting felonies.
On appeal, Patrick argues that the trial court erred, citing Williams v. State 2 for the proposition that he should have been sentenced under OCGA § 16-8-14 b 1 C. In Williams , the defendant was tried and convicted for his fifth shoplifting offense. His prior offenses included three felony and one misdemeanor shoplifting convictions and three non-shoplifting felonies. Although the trial court sentenced Williams under OCGA § 17-10-7 c,3 we reversed, reasoning that the proper recidivist sentencing scheme was found in OCGA § 16-8-14 b 1 C,4 which deals specifically with enhanced punishment for shoplifting.