Alexander Diaz appeals from his convictions on two counts of attempting to hijack a motor vehicle, four counts of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and criminal trespass. In his sole enumeration of error, Diaz contends the trial court should have granted his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant, Oracio Villagomez.1 Finding no merit in this argument, we affirm. Whether to sever the trials of co-defendants is a matter of discretion with the trial judge, and, absent abuse, his decision will not be disturbed by the appellate court. Factors to be considered by the court in its exercise of discretion are as follows: 1 Will the number of defendants create confusion as to evidence and law relative to the separate defendants 2 Is there a danger that evidence admissible against only one defendant or, where there are more than two defendants, only against certain ones of them will nevertheless be considered against another; and 3 Are the defendants’ respective defenses antagonistic to the defenses, or the rights, of another It is the defendant who has the burden of showing, on his motion to sever, that any of the named criteria are applicable so as to prejudice his defense. Citations and punctuation omitted. Hill v. State , 212 Ga. App. 448 1 442 SE2d 298 1994. Diaz argues that he was entitled to a trial separate from Villagomez because there was confusion among the eyewitnesses about “which defendant was supposed to have done what during the course of the criminal enterprise,” and because Villagomez testified and placed all responsibility for the crimes on Diaz, thereby creating antagonistic defenses. The record shows that Villagomez and Diaz’s ill-fated crime spree began when Villagomez attempted to take Gail Robinson’s Corvette after she filled it with gasoline at a gas station. When Robinson got back into her car, Villagomez approached her and prevented her from closing the door. He then waved a silver gun over her and demanded that she get out of the car. When he grabbed her shirt to pull her out of the car, it ripped, causing him to fall backward. Robinson then jumped out of her car and began screaming and crying hysterically that he was trying rob her and take her car. When people began rushing toward Robinson, Villagomez got into the passenger side of a black Mercury Mountaineer that was parked behind Robinson’s Corvette. A second man, later identified as Diaz, was in the driver’s seat. Diaz sped off with Villagomez and turned right onto a dead-end street beside the gas station.
Three men, who drank coffee together at the gas station almost every morning Charles Freeman, Joe Williams, and Scott Austin, testified that when they learned that someone had tried to take Robinson’s car, they went outside, where they learned that the perpetrators had gone down the dead-end street in the black Mercury Mountaineer. Williams and Austin retrieved their guns from their car, and the three men went to the entrance of the dead-end street to try either to stop the perpetrators or get their license tag number. When the black Mercury Mountaineer containing the two men returned down the street, bystanders started yelling for it to stop. The driver of the Mountaineer accelerated and aimed for the three men, causing them to fear they would be run over. According to Freeman, the driver then put a gun on top of the steering wheel; Austin testified that the passenger pointed a silver gun at them. Austin then fired his weapon four times at the Mountaineer. Diaz ducked, causing the Mountaineer to swerve away from the men.
