Shelton v. State

The trial court's error in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of an unrelated arrest did not warrant reversal of his convictions, given the victims' eyewitness testimony and the compelling physical evidence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Richard Shelton was convicted by a Fulton County jury of one count of theft by taking and two counts of armed robbery. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in 1 failing to suppress evidence, 2 refusing to sever the charges for trial, and 3 impermissibly placing his character in issue. For reasons which follow, we affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. Grant v. State, 195 Ga. App. 463, 464 1 393 SE2d 737 1990. So viewed, the evidence shows that on June 17, 1996, Arthur Montgomery intended to leave his BMW at an automobile detailing shop. Montgomery saw a man outside the shop who said that he was a shop employee. The man drove Montgomery back to his office, but never took the car back to the detailing shop. Montgomery identified Shelton as the man who took his BMW. On August 13, 1996, Robert Barnes got into his Mercedes automobile in the underground parking area below his condominium residence. A man forced him to relinquish the car keys at gunpoint and then drove away. The victim identified Shelton as the gunman. On August 24, 1996, Brent Haygood had just entered his Mercedes, which was in a parking lot in midtown Atlanta, when he heard a tap on the driver’s side window. Haygood exited the car, and a man placed a gun against his forehead and told Haygood that he was taking the car. When Haygood refused, the man fired the gun but failed to injure Haygood. The man then took the car. Haygood identified Shelton as the perpetrator.

Shelton v. State

The trial court's error in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of an unrelated arrest did not warrant reversal of his convictions, given the victims' eyewitness testimony and the compelling physical evidence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report