Devon Haslam v. State

FIRST DIVISION
BARNES, P. J.,
MCMILLIAN and MERCIER, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
May 5, 2017
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A17A0227. HASLAM v. THE STATE.
MCMILLIAN, Judge.
In this out-of-time appeal, Devon Haslam appeals from the judgment entered
after a jury convicted him of rape, aggravated sodomy, false imprisonment, robbery
by force, and hindering a person making an emergency phone call. As his sole
enumeration of error, Haslam asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions for rape and two counts of aggravated sodomy.1
1
Haslam was charged in three separate indictments arising out of three separate
incidents involving three separate victims. The indictments were consolidated for
trial, and Haslam was convicted on each of them. Haslam filed three appeals, each
based on a separate indictment, and this Court denied his motion to consolidate those
appeals. Haslam does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions in Case Nos. A17A0226 and A17A0228, but instead only argues that his
convictions for rape and aggravated sodomy in Case No. A17A0227 are not
supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, Haslam argues that if we grant him a new
trial on those two charges, he would be entitled to a new trial on all charges in all
Under Georgia law, “[a] person commits the offense of rape[, inter alia,] when
he has carnal knowledge of [an adult] female forcibly and against her will. . . . Carnal
knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by
the male sex organ.” OCGA § 16-6-1 (a). “A person commits the offense of
aggravated sodomy[, inter alia,] when he or she commits sodomy with force and
against the will of the other person[.]” OCGA § 16-6-2 (a) (2). Sodomy is defined as
“any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of
another.” OCGA § 16-6-2 (a) (1).2
“On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the
presumption of innocence[.]” Walker v. State, 267 Ga. App. 155, 155 (1) (598 SE2d
875) (2004). That is because it is within the province of the jury to determine the
credibility of witnesses, including the victim, and the weight to be given to their
three indictments. We find no merit to that argument. See Wiggins v. State, 280 Ga.
268, 272 (2) (626 SE2d 118) (2006). Accordingly, we have dismissed, by separate
order, the appeals in Case Nos. A17A0226 and A17A0228 for failure to enumerate
any error by the trial court in connection with those cases. See Adamson v. Sanders,
279 Ga. 187, 188 (611 SE2d 44) (2005); Wiring Solutions, LLC v. Astra Group, Inc.,
335 Ga. App. 723, 726 (781 SE2d 597) (2016).
2
Haslam does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his other
convictions in this case, and thus we do not address them.
2
testimony. McIntosh v. State, 247 Ga. App. 640, 641 (1) (545 SE2d 61) (2001). An
appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury; we neither weigh
the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Our task is simply to ascertain
whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict under the standard set
forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). See
Nolan v. State, 255 Ga. App. 63, 63 (1) (564 SE2d 464) (2002). If some competent
evidence exists to support each essential element in the State’s case, even if
contradicted, the jury’s verdict must be upheld. Walker, 267 Ga. App. at 155 (1).
So viewed, the evidence at trial showed that Haslam responded to an
advertisement placed by the victim, who was working as a prostitute. The two
arranged via text messages to meet at a hotel for sex. The victim let Haslam into her
hotel room, and when she turned around at Haslam’s request, he grabbed her by the
neck. Haslam told the victim not to scream and, with his arm still around her neck,
instructed her to take off her “bottoms.” Haslam then shoved the victim down on the
bed and began to penetrate her both vaginally and anally for a period of three to four
minutes, causing her to experience pain and bleed from her anus. Haslam ordered the
victim to wipe off her face and threatened to kill her. He then forced his penis into her
mouth. Afterwards, Haslam penetrated her both anally and vaginally again.
3
Afterwards, Haslam took the victim’s money and cellphone and snatched the hotel
phone out of the wall; he then raped her anally again. At that point, he tied the
victim’s wrists to her ankles, placed a towel in her mouth, and left.
A doctor, who later examined the victim testified that her pelvic exam showed
signs of possible injuries to the vaginal cavity and anal region, which were consistent
with the victim’s story that she was forcibly penetrated.
We find that this and other evidence at trial was sufficient to support Haslam’s
convictions for rape and aggravated sodomy as charged in this case. See Ruffin v.
State, 333 Ga. App. 793, 793 (1) (777 SE2d 262) (2015) (“the victim’s testimony,
standing alone, would have been sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty”);
Bradberry v. State, 297 Ga. App. 679, 681 (1) (678 SE2d 131) (2009) (sufficient
direct and circumstantial evidence of forcible rape by victim’s testimony that she was
forced against her will and that intercourse was painful). Although on appeal, Haslam
points to inconsistencies and discrepancies between details in the victim’s report of
the incident to her boyfriend, health workers, and law enforcement, including how she
met Haslam, whether she was working as a prostitute, and the nature of the acts
performed, she consistently maintained that she had been sexually assaulted by
Haslam. Moreover, any “such inconsistencies and how they may impact the
4
credibility or veracity of witnesses are for a jury to reconcile.” Dinkins v. State, __
Ga. __ (3) (Case No. S16A1850, decided March 6, 2017). See also Vega v. State, 285
Ga. 32, 33 (1) (673 SE2d 223) (2009) (“‘It was for the jury to determine the
credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the
evidence.’”) (citation omitted). Because the record contains evidence supporting the
jury’s findings on the charges of rape and aggravated sodomy, we affirm.
Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
5