(2011) Cooper Gunns Dispensing Pharmacy Book Free

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Vaniria Setser

unread,

Jun 29, 2024, 6:18:00 AM6/29/24

to stalvistchandtec

"(1) That persons who are convicted of certain serious violent felonies shall serve minimum terms of imprisonment which shall not be suspended, probated, stayed, deferred, or otherwise withheld by the sentencing judge; and

"(2) That sentences ordered by courts in cases of certain serious violent felonies shall be served in their entirety and shall not be reduced by parole or by any earned time, early release, work release, or other such sentence-reducing measures administered by the Department of Corrections."

(2011) cooper gunns dispensing pharmacy book free

Download File ⚹ https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://ssurll.com/2yMxA3&source=gmail&ust=1719742570955000&usg=AOvVaw1Ky7PEPEtK5Nj8jSXMwvLm

Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, 16, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The provisions of this Act shall apply only to those offenses committed on or after the effective date of this Act; provided, however, that any conviction occurring prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act shall be deemed a 'conviction' for the purposes of this Act and shall be counted in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed for any offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act."

Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959, 17, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "In the event any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Act shall be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall in no manner affect the other sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Act, which shall remain of full force and effect as if the section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally a part hereof. The General Assembly declares that it would have passed the remaining parts of this Act if it had known that such part or parts hereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional."

Ga. L. 1998, p. 180, 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The General Assembly declares and finds: (1) That the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994,' approved April 20, 1994 (Ga. L. 1994, p. 1959), provided that persons convicted of one of seven serious violent felonies shall serve minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment which shall not otherwise be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; (2) That in State v. Allmond, 225 Ga. App. 509 (1997), the Georgia Court of Appeals held, notwithstanding the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994,' that the provisions of the First Offender Act would still be available to the sentencing court, which would mean that a person who committed a serious violent felony could be sentenced to less than the minimum mandatory ten-year sentence; and (3) That, contrary to the decision in State v. Allmond, it is the expressed intent of the General Assembly that persons who commit a serious violent felony specified in the 'Sentence Reform Act of 1994' shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and shall not be eligible for first offender treatment."

- State failed to prove venue for armed robbery and hijacking a motor vehicle since the facts showed that the victim was forced at gunpoint into the victim's car in a parking lot in one county and then ordered the victim to drive into a second county (the place of trial) where the victim was taken from the car and shot; both offenses were complete in the first county and neither O.C.G.A. 16-8-1 nor O.C.G.A. 17-2-2(d) were applicable to confer venue in the second county. Bradley v. State, 272 Ga. 740, 533 S.E.2d 727 (2000).

Evidence that an armed robbery occurred very near, within sight distance, of the intersection of two roads, and an officer's testimony that the officer was familiar with the area and that the intersection of the two roads was in DeKalb County was sufficient to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt in DeKalb County. Alexis v. State, 313 Ga. App. 283, 721 S.E.2d 205 (2011).

15-11-28. - Superior court exceeded the court's authority in transferring the prosecution of two juveniles to juvenile court after the state elected to pursue the cases in superior court as O.C.G.A. 15-11-28(b)(1) granted the court concurrent jurisdiction over the cases before the court, and the court was obligated to retain jurisdiction prior to indictment; moreover, armed robbery qualified as an act which would be considered a crime if tried in a superior court and for which the child may be punished by loss of life, imprisonment for life without possibility of parole, or confinement for life in a penal institution. State v. Henderson, 281 Ga. 623, 641 S.E.2d 515 (2007).

- To constitute robbery it is unnecessary that taking of property should be directly from one's person; it is sufficient if it is taken while in the person's possession and immediate presence. Fincher v. State, 211 Ga. 89, 84 S.E.2d 76 (1954).

- There was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for armed robbery, and the state proved that the property was taken from the victims' persons or immediate presence despite the victims being in another room when the property was taken as, considering that the victims were held at gunpoint in the bedroom while property was taken from the living room, the theft was not too far afield to be outside the victims' immediate presence. Jennings v. State, 292 Ga. App. 149, 664 S.E.2d 248 (2008).

Because the armed robbery count of the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of armed robbery, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge it, and the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for new trial as to the ineffective assistance claim; that the property was taken from the person or immediate presence of another is necessarily inferred from the allegation of a use of an offensive weapon to accomplish the taking, and the alleged offense of "armed robbery" can be accomplished only via a taking from the person or immediate presence of another. Patterson v. State, 312 Ga. App. 793, 720 S.E.2d 278 (2011), cert. denied, No. S12C0574, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 327 (Ga. 2012).

Gravamen of the offense of armed robbery is the taking of items from the possession of another by use of an offensive weapon and not the identification of the specific owner of the item taken; it does not matter exactly whose property was taken so long as it was taken from a person or the immediate presence of another. Avila v. State, 322 Ga. App. 225, 744 S.E.2d 405 (2013).

- Where two of alleged victims of armed robbery were husband and wife, fact that stolen property may have been jointly owned does not preclude appellant from being convicted of two counts of armed robbery. Carter v. State, 156 Ga. App. 633, 275 S.E.2d 716 (1980).

- Based on the totality of the circumstances and the undisputed evidence, because the defendant's confession to a police detective was voluntary and admissible under former O.C.G.A. 24-3-50 (see now O.C.G.A. 24-8-824), not coerced or received as a result of promises made, and not subject to exclusion due to improper methods used by the police, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence; further, exclusion of the confession was not required based on a violation of the defendant's right to counsel. Swain v. State, 285 Ga. App. 550, 647 S.E.2d 88 (2007).

- Defendant's convictions for armed robbery and robbery by intimidation in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-8-40(a)(2) and16-8-41(a) were appropriate because the defendant's own confessions to participating in the crimes were corroborated by the testimony of the victims, among other evidence. Likewise, the defendant's codefendants' statements and testimony implicating the defendant in the crimes were corroborated by the defendant's confessions and the victims' testimony. Cantrell v. State, 299 Ga. App. 746, 683 S.E.2d 676 (2009).

- Although the defendant had custody of a necklace pursuant to the victim's consent, possession of the necklace did not change to the defendant until the victim, by means of violence, had been dissuaded from seeking its return. That being so, it was the force which effected the taking, authorizing a conviction for robbery by force. Cantrell v. State, 184 Ga. App. 384, 361 S.E.2d 689 (1987).

When the appellants moved for a directed verdict of acquittal of armed robbery on grounds that a convenience store clerk fled the store before any property was actually taken, the trial court did not err by denying the appellants' motion for a directed verdict of acquittal since the victim fled the scene after the victim was threatened with a knife and the property was stolen before the victim could even drive away, which was sufficient to constitute a theft from the victim's immediate presence. Morgan v. State, 195 Ga. App. 732, 394 S.E.2d 639 (1990).

When the defendants' accomplice put a gun to the victim's head and ordered the victim to "drop the money on the floor" and, at the same time as the victim dropped the money, the victim pushed the gun away, drew a revolver and shot the accomplice, the facts were sufficient to support a finding of a "taking" within the meaning of the offense of armed robbery. State v. Watson, 239 Ga. App. 482, 520 S.E.2d 911 (1999).

- Upon the defendant's challenge to two armed robbery convictions, despite the fact that it was not explicitly stated in the indictment that the defendant intended to commit a theft, such intent was necessarily inferred from the allegation of the use of an offensive weapon to accomplish a taking. Thus, considering the allegations of the indictment as a whole, there was no failure to allege all of the elements of the crime of armed robbery, and there was no reasonable doubt that the defendant was sufficiently informed of the charges and protected from the subsequent prosecution for the same crime. Beals v. State, 288 Ga. App. 815, 655 S.E.2d 687 (2007).

- Count 1 in the indictment was not defective, and trial counsel was not deficient in failing to attack the count as the defendant was sufficiently informed of the charges against the defendant and also protected from subsequent prosecution for the same crime because, although Count 1 did not track the criminal attempt statute exactly, read as a whole, Count 1 asserted that, with intent to commit armed robbery, the defendant committed a substantial step toward commission of the crime by pointing a gun at the victim and grabbing the victim's person; and, although Count 1 referenced an attempt to commit robbery, it clearly alleged use of a gun, and armed robbery occurred when a person committed a robbery by use of an offensive weapon. Wilson v. State, 344 Ga. App. 285, 810 S.E.2d 303 (2018).