SECOND DI VI SI ON M I LLER, P. J. , M A RKLE and LA ND, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Jul y 2, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 59 4. TH E STA TE v

. STI LLM A N

. M A R K L E , J u d ge. A f ter Enan Stillman p led gu ilty to tw o c o unts o f traf f ic k ing o f p erso ns f

or sexu al

serv itu d e (OCGA § 16

- 5- 46 (c )) and o ne c o u nt o f p and ering f o r p erso n und er 1 8 (OCGA § 16

- 6 -1 2), the trial c o u rt v ac ated t he traf f ic king charges based o n the ru le o f lenity, and sentenc ed Stillman o nly o n the p and ering c harge. T he State no w ap p eals,
argu ing that the trial c o urt erred (1 ) bec au se t he f irst traf f ic k ing charg e c o n t a i n e d
d if f erent elements f

r o m that o f p and ering, and (2) bec au se the sec o nd traf f ic k ing

c harge s p ec if

ic ally alleged that Stillman s u bj ec ted and m a inta ined the vic tim, w ho w as

u nd er 1 8 years o f age, in sexu al serv itu d e, whic h is a c rime dif f e r ent f ro m p and ering.Fo r the reaso ns that f ollo w , w e rev erse Stillman’ s co nv ic tio n and r emand the c ase to the trial c o u rt f

o r resentenc ing.
The rec ord sho w s that, o n D ec e mber 1 6 , 201 9 , Stillman met the then- 1 6

- yearo ld high sc ho o l s t u d e n t o n a w ebsite k no wn a s “ Seek ingA rrangements. c o m,” a

w ebsite u sed f

o r c o nnec ting old er m en w ith yo u nger wo men f o r the p u rp o se o f sex. The v ic tim had c reated a p r o f ile o n the w ebsite ind ic a ting that she w as 1 8 years o ld

. A t so me p o int, Stillman inqu ired into the vic tim’ s age, at w hic h t ime she to ld him she

w as ac tu a lly 1 7 years o ld

. A f ter c o nnec t ing thro u gh the w ebsite, Stillman pic k ed the

v ic tim u p f

ro m sc ho o l, to ok her to a ho tel, a nd p aid her $500 f o r o ral and v aginal sex. D u ring the enc o u nter, Stillman o f f ered to pay the vic tim $500 f o r eac h f u tu re sexu al

enc o unter and $3,000 to trav el w ith him on v ac atio n. A f terw ard s, Stillman d ro v e the

v ic tim bac k to sc ho o l. L a ter that s ame d ay, the v ic tim’ s father d i sc o vered w hat had

o c c u r red betw een her and Stillman, c au sing her to ru n aw ay fro m ho me. Sho r tly
thereaf ter, s h e w a s p ic k e d u p by law enf o rc ement, and a c riminal inv e stigatio n o f
Stillman ensu ed

. St i l l m a n wa s charged with tw o c o u nts o f t raf f ic k ing perso ns fo r sexu al serv itu d e and o ne c o u nt o f pand ering of a p erso n u nd er 1 8 years o f a ge. Stillman entered a no n2nego tiated gu ilty p lea to all c harges. Prio r to the p lea hearing, Stillman mo v ed the trial

c o u rt to enter j u d gment a gainst him o nly f o r the p and e r ing c o u nt. A t the p lea hearing,
Stillman again o ra l l y mo v ed the trial c o u rt t o c o nv ic t and sentenc e him o nly o n the
p and ering c harge b e c au se, as a matter o f law , he c o uld o nly be c onv ic ted o f pand ering

as the initial so lic itatio n o f the vic tim w as the o nly crime he c o m mitted , and bec au se the tw o c o unts f

o r t raf f ic k ing ess e n t i a l l y c harged the same c rime a s p and ering. The
trial c ou rt granted Stillman’ s mo tio n, v ac ated the traf f ic k ing c harges based on the ru le

o f lenity, and sentenc ed Stillman o n the p and ering c ou nt. 1 The State no w ap p eals.
B ef o re t u rning to the merits of the State’ s argu ment, w e f irst set f o r t h t h e relev ant law

. The ru le o f lenity ap p lies whe n a s t a tu t e , o r s tatu tes, establishes, o r establish, dif

f erent p u nishments f

o r the same o f

f ense, and pro v id es that the ambigu ity is reso lv ed in f av o r o f t he d ef

e nd a nt, w ho w ill then r e c eiv e the lesser p unishment. The f u nd amental inqu iry when mak ing this assessment, then, is w hether the id entic al co n d u ct w o u ld su pp ort a
c o nv ic tio n u nd er either o f tw o c rimes w ith d if f ering p enal ti e s , i. e. , w hether t he s tatu tes d ef

i ne the s ame o f

f e nse s u c h t hat an ambigu ity is
c reated by dif

f erent pu nishments b eing set f o rth f o r the same c rime. T he

1 A t the sentenc ing hearing, the trial c o u rt initially imp o sed a $1 0,000 f ine, bu t su bsequ ently c hanged the fine to $5,000 and requ ired Stillman to r eimbu rse t he c rime v ic tims f u nd $7 ,540. 94.
3essential requ irement o f the ru le o f len i t y is that bo th crimes c o u ld be

p ro v ed with the s ame ev id enc e. As the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia
rec e n t l y e xp lained , w hen o ne o ff ense has been c riminaliz ed by tw o d if f erent statu t o ry p ro v isio ns, o ne o f w hic h p ro v id e s a l e s s e r p u n ishment than the o ther

. . . , the statu to ry p ro v isio n imp osing the greater p u nishment is ef

f ec tiv ely abro gated by the pro visio n imp o sing the lesser p u nishment, and the d e f

end ant ca n n ot b e p ro

perly pro s ecu ted o r co n v i

cted
u n der t he mo re stri

n gen t p r o v i s i o n . The ef

f ec t o f c omp letely o v erlap p ing and theref

o re am b i g u o u s c riminal statu tes is t hat t he d ef end ant ca n be
su bj ec t o nly to the statu t e w ith the lesser p e nalty. (Citatio ns and p u n c tu atio n omitted , emp hasis in o riginal. ) To wn s v . S ta te , 357 Ga.
A p p . 7 01 , 7 02 (849 SE2d 249 ) (2 020). B u t, “ [t]he ru le o f lenity is a ru le o f

c o nstru c tio n that is a p p lied only w hen a n a mbigu ity still exists a f ter hav ing ap p lied the
trad itio nal c ano ns o f s tatu to ry c o nstru c tio n. ” McN ai r v . S ta te , 29 3 Ga. 282, 284 (7 45 SE2d 6 46 ) (201 3). I n o t her w o rd s, u nd er the ru le,

w h e re any unc ertainty d ev elo p s as to w hic h p enal c lau se is ap plic ab l e , the ac c u sed is entitled to hav e the l e s s e r of t he tw o p enalties ad ministered

. The ru le o f lenity ap p lies w here the same co nd u c t w o u ld
su p p o rt either a mi sd emeano r o r a felo ny c o nv ic tio n and requ ires that bo t h c rimes c o u ld be p ro v ed w ith the same ev id enc e.

4(Citatio n and p u nc tu a tio n o mitted

. ) W hi te v . S ta t

e , 31 9 G a. A p p . 530, 531

- 532 (2) (7 37 SE2d 324) (201 3).
A nd , bec a u se o u r analysis o f Sti l l man’ s a r gu ments o n ap p eal inv o lv e

c o n s t r u c tio n o f the relev ant c riminal statu tes, w e ap ply o u r w ell- settled ru les o f

statu to ry c o nstru c tio n. W hen interp reting a statu te, w e mu st af fo rd t he statu to ry text its pla in and o rd inary meaning, c o nsid er the text c o ntextu ally, read the text in its
mo st natu ral and r easo nable w a y , a s an o rd inary sp eak e r o f the English langu age w ou ld , a nd seek to av o id a co nstru c tio n t hat mak es s o m e langu age mere su r p lu sage. Fu rther, w hen t h e l a n g u age of a statu te is p lain and su sc e p tible o f o nly o ne nat u r a l and reaso nable c o nstru c tio n,
c o u rts mu st c o nstru e the statu te ac c o rd ingly. (Citatio n o mitted

. ) S ta te v . H i lls ma n , 36 8 G a. A p p . 87 3, 87 6 (89 1 SE2d 440) (2023);

see a lso C la rk v. S ta te , 37 0 Ga. A p p . 430, 433 (1 ) (89 7 SE2d 6 45 ) ( 2 024). “ A s in all
ap p eals inv o lv ing the co nstru ctio n o f statu tes, o u r rev iew is co nd u c ted u nd er a d e

no v o stand ard

. ” Mi tchell v . S ta te , 343 Ga. A p p . 11 6 , 1 1 7 ( 806 SE2d 226 ) (201 7 ). W ith these p rinc ip les in mind , w e tu rn to the State’ s argu ments.
1

. The State first argu es o n ap p eal t hat the trial c o urt erred in v ac ating the f irst
traf f ic k ing c o u n t and instead c o nv ic ting a nd sentenc ing Stillman f o r pand ering

5bec au se Stillman d id m ore than j u st s o li ci t the vic tim fo r sex, as requ ired f o r the
p and ering o f

f ense, in that he rec ru ited t he 1 6

- year- o ld v ic tim and had sex w ith her. We
agree. H ere, Co u nt 1 o f the ind ic tment c harged Stillman w ith traffi ck ing o f p erso ns f o r

sexu al serv itu d e in that he d id “ k no wingly rec ru it, e ntic e, harbo r, t ransp o rt, p atro niz e and obtain [the v ic tim], an ind iv id u al u nd er 1 8 y ears o f age, f o r the p u rp o se o f sexu al

serv itu d e. ” A nd Co u nt 3 c harged Stillman w ith p and ering f o r p erso n u nd er 18 in that
he d id “ then and there u nlaw f ully so lic it [the v ic tim], an ind iv id u al u nd er 1 8 years o f age, to p e rf

o rm an ac t o f

p ro stitu tio n in her o w n behalf

. ”
Pu rsu ant t o OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 46 (c ) ( 1 ) (2) (ef f ec ti v e J u l y 1 , 201 9 ), “ [a] p erso n

c o mmits the o ff

ense o f t r af

f ic k ing an ind iv id u al f

o r sexu al serv itu d e w hen t hat p erso n k no w ingly: (1 ) [s]u bj ec ts a n ind iv id u al t o or maintains an ind iv id u al in sexu al

serv itu d e; (2) [r]ec ru its, entic es, harbo rs, transp o rts, p ro v id es, so lic its, p atro niz es, o r

o btains b y any means an ind iv i d u a l f o r the pu r po se o f sexu al serv itu de[. ]” “ Sexu al

serv itu d e” means a ny sexu ally exp lic it c o n d u c t o r p erf ormanc e inv o lv ing sexu a lly
exp lic it c o nd u c t f

o r w hic h anything o f v a lu e is d irec tly o r ind irec t ly giv en, p ro mised

to , or rec e iv ed by any ind iv id ual, w hic h c o nd u c t is ind u c ed o r o btained : . . . [f ]ro m an

6ind iv id u al w ho is und er the age o f 1 8 y ears. ” OCGA § 1 6 -5- 46 (a) ( 8) (B ). A ny p erso n

w ho co mmits t he o f

f ense o f traf

f ic k ing an ind iv id u a l u nd er 1 8 years o f age is gu ilty o f

a felo ny p u nishable by imp riso nment f o r no t less than 25 no r m o r e than 50 years o r lif e imp riso nment and a f

ine no t to exc eed $1 00,000. 00. OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 46 (f ) (1 ).
I n c o n t r a s t , “ [a] p e rso n c o mmits the o f fense o f p and e r ing w hen he o r she

so lic its a p erso n to p erf

orm an ac t o f pro stitu t i o n i n h i s o r h er o w n b ehalf

. . . . ”
OCGA § 1 6 -6 -1 2. A ny perso n c o n v i c te d o f p and ering a p erso n u nd e r the age o f 1 8
years is gu ilty o f a f

e lo ny p u nishable by imp riso nment f or a p erio d o f no t less than ten

no r mo re than 30 years and a f ine o f no t mo re than $1 00,000. 00. OCGA § 16

- 6

- 1 3 (b) (2).
H ere, the ind ic tment d id no t p red ic ate the tw o o f f enses o n the same c o nd u ct

o r a ct. N otably, the State d id no t inc lu d e “ s o lic it” in Co u nt 1

. On the o t her hand , the
p and ering statu te inc lu d e s o n ly the ac t o f so lic iting the v ic tim who is u nd er t he age o f

1 8 years, as the State c harged in Co u nt 3. Thu s, altho u gh t he tw o d ef ined c rimes may ad d ress similar c riminal co nd uc t, there is no ambigu ity b e t we e n t h e s e statu tes bec au se the State d id no t c harge Stillman w ith the same c o nd u c t in Co u nt 1 as in Co u nt 3.
Ko ro ma v . S ta te , 350 Ga. Ap p. 530, 532- 533 (2) (827 SE2d 9 03) (201 9 ). I n other w o rd s,

7as c harged in the ind ic tment, the State c o u ld p ro ve that Stillman c o mp leted the ac t o f

p and ering b y hav ing so lic ited the v ic t im, w itho u t p ro o f o f all the elements c o mp rising
the ac t o f traf

f ic k ing charged in Co u nt 1

. S t i l l m an, ho w ev er, did m ore than merely

so lic it the v ic tim f

or sex. H e so lic ited the v ic tim, p ic k ed her up f ro m her sc ho o l, to o k
her to a ho t el, had sex with her, and p aid her f or the s erv ic e . A s su c h, the traf f ic k ing

c o u nt in the ind ic tment alleges a c rime sep arate and distinc t f ro m the p and ering c o u nt

su c h that the ru le o f lenity do es no t ap p ly. Ko ro ma , 350 Ga. A p p . a t 532- 533 (2) (ru le

o f lenity d id no t ap p ly w here the ind ic tment d id no t p red i c a t e the three o f f enses o n the same c o nd u c t or ac t; rather, eac h o f f ense, as c harged , w as p red ic ated o n a sep arate

sexu al ac t); see also Go rdo n v . S t a t e , 337 Ga. A pp . 6 4, 6 8 (1 ) (7 85 SE2d 9 00) (201 6 ) (the tw o o f

f e nses o f aggrav ated a s s a u lt and f elo ny o b stru c tio n, as d esc ribed in the
ind ic tment and the Co d e, w ere no t p ro v ed by the same ev id enc e, and thu s the ru le o f lenity d id no t ap p l y) ; W

h i t e v . S ta te , 31 9 Ga. A p p . 530, 532- 533 (2) (7 37 SE2d 324) (201 3) (the c rimes o f c ru elty to c hild r en in t he sec o nd degree and third degree, as alleged in the ind ic tment, c o u ld no t be p ro ven b y the same ev id enc e, and thu s the ru le

o f lenity d id no t ap p l y ) ; c o m p a r e Go rdo n v . S ta te , 334 Ga. Ap p . 6 33, 6 41 (7 80 SE2d

837 6 ) (201 5) (w here the tw o s tatu tes at issu e f o r m ak ing a f

alse statement pro v id ed
d if f erent p u nishment ranges f o r the same c riminal c o nd u c t, ru le o f lenity ap p lied ).
A c c o rd ingly, the trial c o u rt erred by ap p lying the ru le o f lenity t o these c harges.

2. The State next a rgu es that the trial co u rt e rred in v ac a t i n g C o u nt 2 f o r traf f ic k ing and instead c o nv ic ting and sentenc ing Stillman o nly f or p a nd ering bec au se Co u nt 2 sp ec if

ic ally alleged that Stillman had sex w ith the v ic tim in e x c hange f o r

mo ney, and sexu al c o nd u c t is no t an element o f p and ering. A gain, w e agree. The same a nalysis w ith resp ec t to Co unt 1 d ic tates that w e r eac h the same

c o nc lu sio n w ith regard to this traf f ic k ing co u nt. H ere, again, the ind ic tment d id no t
p red ic a te the traf

f ic k ing and p and ering c harges o n t he s ame co nd u c t. Co u nt 2 o f the
ind ic tment c harged Stillman w ith traf f ic k ing o f p erso ns f

or sexu al serv itu d e in that he
d id “k no w ingly su bj ec t and maintain” the vic tim, a n ind iv id u al u nd er 1 8 years o f age, in sexu al serv itu d e . And Co u nt 3 c harged Stillman w ith p and e ring f or u nlaw f u lly

so lic iting the v ic tim, w ho was u nd er the age o f 1 8, to p erf orm an ac t o f pro stitu tio n in
her o w n behalf

. Pand ering o nly entails the ac t o f s o li ci t i n g the v ic tim f

o r sex and d o e s no t inc lu d e the element o f s exu al c o nd u c t requ ired u nd er t he traf f ic k ing s tatu te. OCGA §§ 1 6

- 5-

946 (c ) (1 ); 1 6

- 6

- 1 2. A s su c h, the sec o nd traf f ic k ing c harge a lleges a c rime sep arate and
d istinc t f r o m the p and ering c harge, and requ ires ad d itio nal p ro o f , su c h t hat the ru le

o f lenity d o es no t ap p ly. Ko ro ma , 350 Ga. A pp . at 532- 533 (2); s ee also Go rdo n , 337 Ga.
A p p . at 6 8 ( 1 ); W

hi te , 31 9 Ga. A p p . at 5 32- 533 (2). Theref o r e, the trial c o u rt erred in
ap p lying the ru le o f l e n i t y to t his c o u nt, a s w e ll. A c c o rd ingly, w e rev erse the trial

c o u rt’ s j ud gment, and remand the c ase to the trial c o u rt f o r resentenc ing. 2
Ju dgmen t rev ers ed a n d ca s e rema n ded wi th di recti on . Mi ller, P. J. , a nd La n d, J. ,

co n cu r .

2 W e f u rther no te t hat, u p o n resentenc ing, the lesser c rime o f p and ering in Co u nt 3 s ho uld merge w ith the traf f ic k ing c harges in Co u nts 1 and 2 f or p u rp o ses o f sentenc ing. McMu llen v. S ta te , 327 Ga. A p p . 7 57 , 7 6 0 (2) (7 54 SE2d 7 98) (201 4); see also Ba n t a v . S ta te , 281 Ga. 6 1 5, 6 1 8 (2) (6 42 SE2d 51 ) (2007 ).
10