Dillard, Presiding Judge. Following a joint trial, a jury convicted both Tucker Hamlette and his brother, Timothy Hamlette, on one count each of voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Both brothers now appeal, and because their cases arise out of the same set of facts, we have consolidated their appeals for review. In Case No. A19A1839, Tucker Hamlette argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of felony murder, denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and failing to merge his convictions for sentencing. In Case No. A19A2176, Timothy Hamlette challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and contends that the trial court erred in denying the claim in his motion for new trial that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the principles of justice and equity, and in similarly failing to merge his convictions for sentencing. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm the convictions in both cases, but because those convictions should have merged for purposes of sentencing, we vacate both sentences and remand for resentencing. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,[1] the evidence shows that on the night of June 19, 2015, Stephant Lewis and some friends went to a nightclub in an area of Folkston known as “the Sticks.” While there, Lewis encountered his cousins, Timothy and Tucker Hamlette, as well as some of their friends. Sometime after 9:00 p.m., Lewis and Timothy Hamlette got into an argument. The argument quickly became heated and escalated into a fight, in which Timothy, Tucker, and several of their friends knocked Lewis to the ground. And in an attempt to defend himself, Lewis pulled a knife and cut Timothy, who had been on top of him. Lewis then got to his feet, raised both of his hands to the air in a “surrendering” motion, and started walking toward his girlfriend’s car, which was parked just across the street. But as he did, Timothy and Tucker pulled handguns and began firing at him. As the shots rang out, Lewis—as well as numerous other people on the crowded street—tried to flee, but three bullets struck him, and he fell into a nearby ditch. Immediately, both Hamlettes fled the scene, and Lewis’s friends put him in a truck to take him to the hospital. But within minutes, they met an ambulance that had been dispatched to the scene. The paramedics then placed an unresponsive Lewis into the ambulance and transported him to the hospital. Nevertheless, once there, attempts to resuscitate Lewis were unsuccessful, and he was pronounced dead. Subsequently, the State charged both Timothy and Tucker Hamlette, via the same indictment, with one count of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Ultimately, the case proceeded to a joint trial, in which the State presented the foregoing evidence. In addition, a GBI forensic pathologist—who performed the autopsy on Lewis—testified that his cause of death was due to three gunshot wounds to his back, thigh, and calf, respectively, and that the wounds were caused by two different caliber bullets. A GBI firearms expert also testified that several .22 caliber and .380 caliber shells were recovered from the crime scene. Finally, a GBI special agent testified regarding her recorded interviews—which were played for the jury—with Timothy, Tucker, and a third brother, Tony Hamlette, who was a witness to the shooting. At the trial’s conclusion, the jury found both Timothy and Tucker Hamlette guilty of voluntary manslaughter, as a lesser-included offense of felony murder, and aggravated assault. Thereafter, Timothy filed a motion for new trial. And after obtaining new counsel, Tucker also filed a motion for new trial, in which he alleged, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing on the Hamlettes’ motions, during which Tucker’s trial counsel testified regarding his representation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the issues under advisement, but shortly thereafter, it issued orders denying both Hamlettes’ motions. These appeals follow. Case No. A19A1839 1. In his first enumeration of error, Tucker Hamlette contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of felony murder, arguing that evidence did not support such an instruction. This contention lacks merit. During the charge conference, although Tucker informed the trial court that he was not requesting a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, he explicitly stated that he had no objection to his brother, Timothy, requesting such a charge. But OCGA § 17-8-58 requires that “[a]ny party who objects to any portion of the charge to the jury or the failure to charge the jury shall inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for such objection before the jury retires to deliberate.”[2] And the failure to so object precludes “appellate review of such portion of the jury charge, unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects the substantial rights of the parties.”[3] In such cases, as the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained, “the proper inquiry is whether the instruction was erroneous, whether it was obviously so, and whether it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings.”[4] Consequently, because Tucker failed to object to this jury charge, our review is limited to consideration in this regard.[5] Turning to our review of the specific instruction at issue, it is well established that “[j]ury charges must be adjusted to the evidence in the case.”[6] But to authorize a jury instruction on a subject, “there need only be produced at trial slight evidence supporting the theory of the charge.”[7] And here, the trial court instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter as follows: After consideration of all the evidence, before you would be authorized to return a verdict of guilty of felony murder, you must first determine whether mitigating circumstances, if any, would cause the offense to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. A person commits voluntary manslaughter when that person causes the death of another human being under circumstances that would otherwise be murder if that person acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person. If there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, which the jury in all cases shall decide, the killing may be attributed to revenge and be punished as for murder. In that connection, I charge you that the burden of proof is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense is so mitigated. Provocation by words alone will in no case justify such excitement of passion sufficient to free the accused from the crime of murder or to reduce the offense to manslaughter when the killing is done solely in resentment of such provoking words. Words accompanied by menaces, though the menaces do not amount to an actual assault, may in some instances be sufficient provocation to excite a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion in a reasonable person. And if a person acts in such passion or any spirit of revenge, then such would constitute voluntary manslaughter. Tucker claims that this instruction constituted plain error, specifically arguing that there was no evidence he fired a gun at Lewis, and, thus, he should either have been found guilty of felony murder predicated upon being a party to aggravated assault or acquitted outright. But the Supreme Court of Georgia has held that “[o]n the trial of a murder case, if there be any evidence, however slight, as to whether the offense is murder or voluntary manslaughter, instruction as to the law of both offenses should be given the jury.”[8] Indeed, our Supreme Court has recognized that a felony murder conviction would “be improper [when] the jury found sufficient provocation or passion with respect to the act that caused the killing to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter.”[9] Thus, when there is evidence that supports a voluntary manslaughter conviction, the jury “should be instructed to consider that evidence before it makes its decision regarding felony murder.”[10] And here, the State presented evidence that immediately following a fight, in which both Tucker and Timothy were involved and in which Lewis cut Timothy, both Tucker and Timothy Hamlette fired handguns at Lewis. In fact, the State also presented evidence that two different caliber bullets struck Lewis. Given these circumstances, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as such instruction was applicable to both defendants.[11] 2. Tucker Hamlette also contends that the trial court erred in denying a claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object when, during closing argument, the State allegedly made an improper remark regarding future dangerousness. We disagree. In order to evaluate Tucker’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two-pronged test established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland v. Washington,[12] which requires Tucker to show that his trial counsel’s performance was “deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced her that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.”[13] In doing so, there is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct, and a criminal defendant must overcome this presumption.[14] In fact, the reasonableness of counsel’s conduct is “examined from counsel’s perspective at the time of trial and under the particular circumstances of the case[.]“[15] And importantly, decisions regarding trial tactics and strategy may form the basis for an ineffectiveness claim only if “they were so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have followed such a course.”[16] Furthermore, unless clearly erroneous, this Court will “uphold a trial court’s factual determinations with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; however, a trial court’s legal conclusions in this regard are reviewed de novo.”[17] Bearing this analytical framework in mind, we turn to Tucker’s specific claim of error. In this regard, near the end of the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor remarked as follows: Y’all are sitting here as the conscious of this county. This thing we call civilization is a thin veneer, very thin. It’s a thin layer of anarchy, criminality, revenge, vendetta, going to shoot him, going to shoot some fellow in the back. If y’all want to live like that knock yourselves out. Turn him loose. Let them go. Their guns are still out there. I guarantee you they know where to find them. If you don’t want to live like that, if you think we ought to live under the rule of law, like civilized people, then I ask you to convict them — guilty of felony murder, guilty of aggravated assault as charged. Thank you. Tucker argues that these remarks—taken as a whole—constituted an improper comment by the State’s prosecutor attributing future dangerousness to him and his brother and that his counsel should have objected. But again, we disagree. To be sure, under present authority, an argument that a defendant “represents a future danger to society is impermissible when a jury is determining guilt or innocence.”[18] This is because such remarks are “irrelevant to the question of whether, under the facts introduced into evidence, the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged.”[19] But general appeals to enforce the criminal law for the safety of the community have “long been held by this [State's appellate courts] to be within the bounds of permissible argument.”[20] And here, the alleged offending remarks did not specifically assert that Tucker and his brother represented a future danger, but rather, implored the jury to not condone the “revenge” or “vendetta” based justice in which the defendants engaged but, instead, enforce the law for “the safety of the community.”[21] Thus, as the State’s closing argument was not improper, trial counsel’s failure to object to it is not evidence of ineffective assistance.[22] Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Tucker’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. 3. Tucker Hamlette further contends that the trial court erred by failing to merge his voluntary manslaughter and aggravated-assault convictions for sentencing purposes. In its appellate brief, the State acknowledges that the convictions should have merged, and we agree. Consequently, we vacate his sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing. The question of whether offenses merge is a legal question that we review de novo.[23] When a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes based upon the same act, “the principle of factual merger operates to avoid the injustice.”[24] Under Georgia law, one crime is included in another when (1) [i]t is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts or a less culpable mental state than is required to establish the commission of the crime charged; or (2) [i]t differs from the crime charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property, or public interest or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission.[25] To answer the question of whether offenses merge, the Supreme Court of Georgia has adopted the “required evidence” test set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve these situations.[26] Thus, when determining whether convictions for multiple crimes merge for purposes of sentencing, “[t]he applicable rule is that [when] the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”[27] In this matter, a separate judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated assault would be authorized only if the indictment averred, and the State proved, that Tucker Hamlette “commit[ted] an aggravated assault independent of the act which caused the victim’s death.”[28] But the indictment charged Tucker with felony murder by alleging that he “did then and there unlawfully, while in the commission of a felony, to-wit: Aggravated Assault, did cause the death of Stephant Lewis, a human being, irrespective of malice, by shooting him with a . . . handgun . . . .” It then charged him with aggravated assault for the exact same conduct. And although the jury convicted Tucker of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of felony murder, it, nevertheless, “follows that [Tucker Hamlette's] conviction for aggravated assault merged as a matter of fact into [his] conviction for voluntary manslaughter.”[29] Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and sentence for aggravated assault and remand the case for resentencing with direction to merge the aggravated-assault count into the voluntary manslaughter count.[30] Case No. A19A2176 4. In his second enumeration of error, which we nonetheless address first, Timothy Hamlette contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. This contention lacks merit. It is axiomatic that when a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.[31] And in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.”[32] Thus, the jury’s verdict will be upheld so long “as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case.”[33] With these guiding principles in mind, we now address Timothy Hamlette’s contention. Under OCGA § 16-5-2 (a), “[a] person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person . . . .” Specifically, evidence of voluntary manslaughter “may be found in a situation which arouses the sudden passion in the person killing so that, rather than defending himself, he wilfully kills the attacker, albeit without malice aforethought, when it was not necessary for him to do so in order to protect himself.”[34] And heated arguments, physical beatings, and fear of some danger “present sufficient provocation for a voluntary manslaughter conviction.”[35] Furthermore, under OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2), a person commits the offense of aggravated assault when “he or she assaults . . . [w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury[.]” Suffice it to say, intentionally firing a gun at another person, absent justification, may be “ sufficient in and of itself to support a conviction of aggravated assault.”[36] Here, the evidence shows that Timothy, Tucker, and some of their friends engaged in a heated argument with Lewis that escalated into a physical altercation, in which they knocked Lewis to the ground. Additional evidence demonstrates that Lewis escaped from the fight by pulling a knife and cutting Timothy, and that Timothy and Tucker pulled handguns and fired at Lewis as he tried to walk away, with three bullets striking and ultimately killing him. Given these circumstances, the evidence sufficiently supported Timothy’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter[37] and aggravated assault,[38] and we, thus, affirm those convictions.[39] 5. In two enumerations of error, which he then combines into one argument, Timothy Hamlette also maintains that the trial court erred in denying the claim in his motion for new trial that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the principles of justice and equity. These contentions likewise lack merit. Under Georgia law, in any case when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity, the judge presiding may “grant a new trial before another jury.”[40] In addition, the presiding judge may exercise “a sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may appear to be some slight evidence in favor of the finding.”[41] And when properly raised in a timely motion, “these grounds for a new trial—commonly known as the ‘general grounds’—require the trial judge to exercise a broad discretion to sit as a ‘thirteenth juror.’”[42] Importantly, in exercising that discretion, the trial judge must consider “some of the things that she cannot when assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, including any conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence.”[43] Furthermore, although the discretion of a trial judge to award a new trial on the general grounds is not boundless, “it nevertheless is, generally speaking, a substantial discretion.”[44] Here, in its order denying Timothy’s motion for new trial, the trial court explicitly stated that it exercised its discretion to weigh the evidence on the general grounds under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 as a “thirteenth juror” but, nonetheless, found that the verdict was not contrary to the evidence, strongly against the weight of the evidence, or contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity. Thus, the court’s order clearly indicates that it properly performed its duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence in consideration of the general grounds.[45] Furthermore, a motion for new trial based on OCGA § 5-5-20, i.e., that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, addresses itself only to the discretion of the trial judge. Whether to grant a new trial based on OCGA § 5-5-21, i.e., that the verdict is strongly against the evidence, is one that is solely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate courts do not have the same discretion to order new trials.[46] Consequently, even when an appellant asks us to review a trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the general grounds, we must “review the case under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia . . . that is, if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the verdict or verdicts.”[47] And as we held in Division 4, supra, under the standard set forth in Jackson, the evidence authorized the jury to find Timothy Hamlette guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted.[48] 6. Finally, in an enumeration identical to his brother’s, Timothy Hamlette also contends that the trial court erred by failing to merge his voluntary manslaughter and aggravated-assault convictions for sentencing purposes. Given that Timothy and Tucker were jointly indicted for the same offenses, and in light of our holding in Division 3, supra, we agree that the trial court erred in this regard. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and sentence for aggravated assault and remand the case for resentencing with direction to merge the aggravated-assault count into the voluntary manslaughter count.[49] For all these reasons, we affirm Tucker and Timothy Hamlettes’ convictions, but we vacate their felony sentences as to the aggravated-assault conviction and, thus, remand both cases to the trial court for resentencing. Judgment in both cases affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded for resentencing. Gobeil and Hodges, JJ., concur.
