Reese, Judge.A Clayton County jury found Timothy Kelly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of one count each of rape, kidnapping, kidnapping with bodily injury, and battery, and two counts of aggravated assault.[1] He appeals from the denial of his amended motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in accepting his waiver of counsel. For the reasons set forth, infra, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,[2] the record reveals the following pertinent facts. On October 14, 2004, at around 3:00 a. m., N. G., a 19-year old woman, was punched in the face and raped at knife point next to a vacant building near her apartment. After the assault and rape, the assailant fled, and N. G. ran home. Someone at N. G.’s home contacted the police, and an officer with the Clayton County Police Department responded. N. G. was transported to a hospital. At the hospital, a registered nurse used a rape kit to perform a sexual assault examination on N. G. The examination results were entered into the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) database in 2006. In 2013, the Clayton County Police Department received notice that a CODIS match had been made indicating that the DNA evidence matched a known sample from the Appellant.In 2015, a jury found the Appellant guilty on all charges, and the trial court initially sentenced him to life with a possibility of parole, plus 20 years to be served concurrently. The Appellant filed an amended motion for new trial. After a hearing, the trial court vacated the Appellant’s convictions on the kidnapping, kidnapping with bodily injury, battery and aggravated assault charges and re-sentenced him on the rape conviction to serve life with the possibility of parole.[3] This appeal followed. Generally, on appeal from a criminal conviction, the appellate courtview[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and an appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. [The] Court determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia,[[4]] and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence are for the jury to resolve. As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, [the Court] must uphold the jury’s verdict.[5]
