Doyle, Presiding Judge. Marcus Daniels was charged with two counts of armed robbery at a Waffle House in Coweta County. Daniels filed a plea in bar, arguing that his prior acquittal for armed robbery of a food mart across the street from the Waffle House precluded this prosecution. The trial court denied the motion, and Daniels appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. The record shows that on May 3, 2017, Daniels was charged with committing armed robbery on October 23, 2016, at a Shell Food Mart. Before the trial, the State filed a “Notice of State’s Intention to Offer Evidence of Independent Crimes and Acts (If Said Evidence is Not First Admitted as Intrinsic Evidence),” seeking to admit evidence of an October 2, 2016 robbery at a nearby Waffle House, which is the robbery charged in the instant case. At the pretrial hearing, the State presented evidence that: (1) the Waffle House and the Shell Food Mart are across the street from each other, near an interstate exit; (2) Daniels sent texts to a friend the day before the Waffle House robbery stating that he needed money and “[had] a Waffle House off [the interstate] exit”; and (3) video from both robberies showed a dark Nissan Versa pull into the parking lot and a male wearing a hooded shirt exit the car, enter the establishment, and point a Glock .45 at the clerk, and a separate man take money from the victim(s). The State argued that evidence of the Waffle House robbery was admissible in the Shell Food Mart case as intrinsic evidence pursuant to Baughns v. State.[1] The State also argued that the evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) (“Rule 404 (b)”) to prove identity, common scheme, and intent.[2] The trial court ruled that the evidence related to the Waffle House robbery was admissible as both intrinsic evidence, and if it was not intrinsic evidence, I’ll find that[:] one it’s relevant evidence; two, that there is proof to show that by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the other act[;] and [three] that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by an undue prejudice after a hearing on the matter. [Therefore, it is admissible under Rule 404 (b)].
