Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JACKSON v. THE STATE.

BLACKBURN, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, Martino Jamar Jackson appeals his convictions for child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and sodomy, contending that: (1) the trial court erred by failing to merge the convictions for aggravated child molestation and sodomy and (2) there was a fatal variance between the indictment for aggravated aggravated child molestation and sodomy, and the evidence presented on those charges. Because Jackson waived these argument for purposes of appeal, we affirm.

1. Jackson first contends that the trial court should have merged his convictions for aggravated child molestation and sodomy as a matter of fact. Jackson further contends that, because of this error, he was improperly sentenced. Jackson, however, "did not object in the trial court to the sentences imposed nor contend that the offenses merged. Thus, the matter was not preserved for appellate review." (Punctuation omitted.) Wright v. State.

Wright v. State, 233 Ga. App. 358, 362 (4) ( 504 S.E.2d 261) (1998). See also Heard v. State, 232 Ga. App. 405, 406 (2) ( 501 S.E.2d 884) (1998).

2. Jackson contends that the indictment regarding the count of sodomy brought against him contained a fatal variance. Once again, however, Jackson has waived this error.

Because the record fails to demonstrate that [Jackson] raised the fatal variance issue on his [sodomy] conviction in the trial court, we may not address it here. Issues presented for the first time on appeal furnish nothing for us to review, for this is a court for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper exception is taken, because one may not abandon an issue in the trial court and on appeal raise questions or issues neither raised nor ruled on by the trial court.

(Punctuation omitted.) Freeland v. State. Judgment affirmed. Pope, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur.

Freeland v. State, 233 Ga. App. 326, 327 (2) ( 477 S.E.2d 633) (1996).

BLACKBURN, Chief Judge.

DECIDED OCTOBER 12, 2001.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JACKSON v. STATE
(Oct 12, 2001)