Daryl Jones was indicted for malice murder, felony murder with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon as the underlying offense, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, all in connection with the shooting death of Gerald Lattimore. His motion to bifurcate his trial on the malice murder count from his trial on the remaining counts was granted. He was tried before a jury for malice murder and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and thereafter, in the second phase of the trial, found guilty of felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 In this appeal from the denial of his amended motion for new trial, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, that his felony murder conviction violated double jeopardy, and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm in part and remand in part. 1. The evidence adduced at trial authorized the jury to find that appellant fatally shot Lattimore. According to numerous eyewitnesses to the incident, there was no provocation before the shooting. Instead, appellant walked towards Lattimore, pulled out a gun concealed under his shirt, shot Lattimore in the head, and then fled the scene. Appellant did not deny shooting Lattimore, but contended that he did so because Lattimore had threatened appellant and his girlfriend the night before. Viewed to support the jury verdict, we find the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the crimes of which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Appellant sought bifurcation of the charge of malice murder from the charge of felony murder predicated upon the status offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in order to avoid the prejudicial impact of injecting his character into evidence. See Head v. State , 253 Ga. 429 3 322 SE2d 228 1984. On appeal, however, appellant contends that the bifurcation resulted in a double jeopardy violation because the question of his guilt on the charge of felony murder was submitted to the jury after it had deliberated on the malice murder count and determined that he was guilty of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.
