FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DOYLE, P. J.

, COOM ER and M A R KLE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly 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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 4, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A2 29 4 . PRUITT v

. THE STATE.

C O O M E R , J u d ge.

In M arch 2 0 1 8

, Ch ri s t o p h er Pru i t t was co n v ict ed o f fl eei n g an d at t em p t i n g to

el u d e an offi cer, o b s t ru ct i o n o r h i n d eri n g l aw en fo rcem en t

, reck les s d ri v i n g

, d ri v i n g

wh i le l i cen s e s u s pen d ed o r rev o k ed

, fo ur co u n t s o f fai l u re t o o b ey a s t o p s i g n,

obs t ru ct i o n o r h i nd eri n g l aw en fo rcem en t

, an d cri m i n al t res p as s

. Fo l l o wi ng the de nia l

o f h is m o t i o n fo r new t ri al

, Pru i t t f i l e d a t i m el y n o t i ce o f ap peal

. On ap peal

, Pru i t t

as s ert s t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred i n i m po s in g a reci di v i st s en t en ce o n f l eei n g an d

at t em p t i n g t o el u d e, an d t h at he was i m p ro p erl y e x c l ud ed fro m b en ch co n feren ces

d u ri n g t ri al . Fi nd i n g n o erro r, we affi rm

.

Pru i tt d o es n o t ch al l en g e t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce ag ai n s t h i m

, an d rai s es

t wo p ro ced u ral i s s u es t h at o ccu rred b el o w. W e wi l l ad dres s each i n t u rn

.1

. Pru it t a r g u es t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred in s en t en ci ng hi m as a reci d i v i s t o n

fl eei n g an d el ud in g

. 1 W e d i s ag ree.

Pr u i t t ’ s cl ai m o f erro r s t em s fro m a co l l o q u y b et ween t h e t ri al co u rt an d t h e

St at e t h at o ccu rred p ri o r t o t ri al

. Du ri n g t h e ex ch an g e, t h e t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e

p ro s ecu to r i f t h ere were an y reci d i v is t co u n ts i n th e i n di ct m en t

. T h e p ro s ecu t o r

res p o n d ed t h at t h ere were n o reci d i v i s t co u n ts

. Pru i tt m ai n t ai ns t h a t t h e St at e’ s

res p o n s e t h at t h ere were n o reci d i vi s t co un t s s h ou l d h av e p r e cl u d ed t h e St at e fro m

s eek i n g an d i m

p os i n g reci d i v i st p u n is h m en t at s en t en ci n g fo l l o w i ng h i s co nv i ct i o n s

.

“ [W ] h et h er a d efen d an t was p ro p erl y s en t en ced as a reci d i v i s t u nd er OCGA §

1 7 -1 0-7 i s s u b

j ect t o d e n o v o rev i ew.” No r d a h l v. S t a t e

, 3 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. 6 8 6

, 6 8 8 (8 1 1

SE2 d 4 6 5) (2 0 1 8) (fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

W e fi rs t n o t e t hat t h e St at e’ s res p o ns e t o t h e tri al co u rt ’ s qu es t io n was co rrect

.

Un d er s o m e ci rcu m s t an ces

, n o t p res en t h ere, t h e St at e i s req u i red t o p ro vi d e n o t i ce

i n t he i nd i ct m en t i f i t s eek s reci d i v i s m on a part i cu l ar co u n t

. See g en eral l y

W a i nwr i g h t v. S t a t e

, 2 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 7

, 7 7 8-7 7 9 (2 ) (a) ( 4 3 2 S E2 d 5 5 5 ) (1 9 9 3 );

1 Co u n t 2

, fl eei ng an d el u d i n g

, was t h e o n ly fel o n y t h e ju ry co n v i ct ed Pru i tt o f,

an d t h e o n ly

co u n t o n wh i ch t h e St at e s o ug h t t o i m p o se reci d i v i st p u n i s h m en t

.

2No r d

a h l

, 3 44 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 9 0 -6 9 1 (1 ). Th e in d i ct m en t h ere d o es n o t refl ect t h at t h ere

were an y reci d i v i s t co un t s

.

As s u m i ng

, arg u en d o

, in an i nt e r p r e t a t i o n fav orab l e t o Pru i t t

, th at t h e St at e

m ean t t hat i t was n o t i n ten d i n g to s eek reci di v i s t p u ni s h m en t at al l

, Pru i t t’ s cl ai m s t i l l

fai l s

. “ In o rd er t o o b tai n a reci d i v i s t s en t en ce u n d er OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -7 (a), t h e St at e

m u st g i v e t h e d efen d an t ‘ cl ear n ot i ce’ b efo re t ri al o f i t s i n t en t i o n t o s ee k s u c h a

s en t en ce.” W

h eel er v. S t at e

, 27 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 3, 3 6 3 (1 ) (6 0 6 SE2 d 6 1 2 ) (2 0 0 4 )

(ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). In Oct ob er 2 0 1 7

, ap p r o x i m a t e l y fi ve m o n t h s p ri o r t o t ri al

, t h e

St at e s erv ed Pru i t t ’ s co un s el wi t h a “ n o t i ce o f i n t en t t o as k fo r s en t en ci n g u n d er

O.C.G.A. § 17 -1 0 -7 .” At sen ten ci n g

, Pru i tt ’ s co u n sel ack no wl ed g ed t h e n o t i ce a n d

co n fi rm ed t h at h e h ad recei v ed i t

. He d id n o t cl ai m an y defi ci en cy i n t h e no t i ce, t h at

h e was su rp ri s ed b y t h e u s e o f t h e co n v ict i o n s

, o r m en t i o n t h e p ret ri al co l l o q u y wi th

t h e St at e. H e m ad e n o ob ject i o n t o t h e i m

p o s i t i o n o f reci d i v i s m p u n i s h m en t an d

affi rm at i v el y ag reed th at Pru i t t m et t h e q u al ifi cat i o n s to b e s en t en ced as a reci d i v i s t

.

Pru i t t’ s co u n s el m erel y arg u ed th at t h e t ri al co u rt s ho u l d s en ten ce Pru i t t t o serv e l es s

t h an fi ve y ears o n t h e fel o n y co u n t an d ru n al l o f t h e m is d em ean o rs co ncu rren t

.

B e cau s e th e St at e pro vi d ed ad eq u at e n ot ice t o Pru i t t, an d co u n sel ch o s e t o

m o ve fo rward at s en t en ci ng wi t h o u t m ak in g an y o b j ect i o n

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err

3i n s en t en ci n g Pru i t t as a reci d i v i s t

. See W i l li a ms v. S t a t e

, 1 6 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 0

, 1 2 0 (2 )

(2 9 0 SE2 d 3 4 1 ) (1 98 2 ) (“ [I] f ap p el l a n t w e re o f th e bel i ef th at s u ch n o ti ce [o f p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n s t o b e u s ed i n ag g rav at i on o f p u n i s h m en t ] was in s u ffi ci en t t o p rev en t t h e

u s e o f hi s p ri o r co n v i ct io n s fro m co n s t i t u t i n g a ‘ s u rp ri s e’

, a m o t i o n fo r a co nt i n u an ce

p rem i s ed u p o n s u ch gro un d s s h o u l d h av e b een m ad e.”); F r ey v. S ta t e

, 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p.

5 8 3

, 5 8 6 -5 8 7 (3 ) ( 7 9 0 SE2 d 8 3 5 ) (2 0 16 ) (Defen d an t wai v ed ap p el lat e rev i ew o f

arg u m en t t h at tri al co u rt erred b y s en t en ci ng hi m as a reci di v i s t

, w here d efen d an t d id

n o t o b j ect i n t ri al co u rt o n g ro u n d s t h at h e at t em p ted t o rai s e o n ap p eal ).

2

. Pru i t t n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en i t fai l ed t o i n cl u de h i m in

b en ch co n feren ces an d al s o fai led t o p l ace o n t h e reco rd t hat h e h ad w ai v ed h i s ri g ht

t o b e p res en t at th es e b en ch co n feren ces . W e ag ai n d is ag ree.

E m b odied wi t h i n t h e co n s t i tu t i o n al ri gh t t o th e co urt s i s a cri m i n al

d e fen d an t’ s ri g h t t o be p res en t an d s ee an d h ear al l t h e p ro ceed i n g s

wh i ch are had ag ai ns t hi m on t h e tri al b efo re t h e co u r t

. Th i s r i g h t

at t ach es at an y s t ag e o f a cri m i n al p ro ceed i n g t hat i s cri t i cal t o i t s

o u t co m e i f t h e d efen d an t ’ s p res en ce w o u ld co n t ri b u t e t o t h e fai rn es s o f

t h e p r o c e d u r e. H owev er, i t d o es n o t ex t en d t o s i tu at io n s wh ere th e

d efen d an t ’ s p r e s en ce wo u l d b e u s el es s – fo r ex am p l e, du ri n g b en ch

co n feren ces d eal i n g wi t h l o g i st i cal o r p ro ced u ral m at t ers o r q u es ti o n s o f

l aw ab o u t wh i ch a d efen d an t p res u m ab l y h as n o k n o wl ed g e. Becau s e a

d efen d an t ’ s p res en ce at b en ch co n feren ces d eal i n g wi t h s u ch t o p i cs

4b ears n o rel at i o n

, reas o n a b l y s u b s t an t i al

, t o t h e fu l l n es s o f h i s

o p p o rt un i t y t o d efen d ag ai n s t t he ch arg e, h i s ri g h t t o b e p res en t i s n o t

v i o l at ed b y

h i s ab s en ce fro m

s u ch b en ch co n feren ces

.

Jo h ns o n v. S t at e

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p. 8 3 1

, 8 3 2 (1 ) (8 2 1 SE2 d 7 6 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

Pru i tt co n t en d s t h at h e w as i m pro p erl y ex cl u d ed fro m fo u r b en ch co n feren ces

t h at o ccu rred at t ri al . Th e fi rs t o ccu rred b efo re ju ry s el ect i o n b eg an

, wh en t h e St at e

i n fo rm ed t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h at i t wo u l d n o t b e p ro ceed i n g o n a b u rg l ary co u n t i n t h e

i n d i ct m en t

. Aft er t h e co n cl us i on o f t h e b en ch co n feren ce, th e t ri al co urt an n o u n ced

t h at “ [w] e can t ak e Co u n t 1 o ut ” an d t h en h ad a d i s c u s s i o n wi t h co u n s el fo r b o th

p art i es i n o p en co u rt ab o u t h o w t o ex p l ai n t h at t o t h e ju ry p an el

. Pru i t t h as ci t ed n o

au t h o ri t y

, an d we h av e fo u n d n on e, t h at s t an ds fo r t h e p ro p o s i ti o n t h at Pru it t h ad t h e

ri gh t t o b e p res en t at a b en ch co n feren ce w h ere t h e St at e el ect ed n o t t o p ro s ecu t e o n e

o f t h e co u n t s ag ai ns t h i m . See S mi t h v. S t a t e

, 3 1 9 Ga. Ap p . 5 9 0 , 5 9 6 (6 ) (7 3 7 SE2 d

7 0 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (Defen d an t ’ s p res en ce at t h e b en ch was n o t n eces s ary t o “ d efen d ag ai n s t

t h e ch arg es ,” an d d i d n o t cau s e h i m “ t o l os e o r wai v e an y

ri g ht o r d efen s e.”)

Th e s eco n d co n feren ce fro m w h i ch P r uitt c onte nds he w a s im

pr operl y ex cl u d ed

was a d i s cu s s i o n ab ou t t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s cal en dar p ert ai n i n g t o t h e n ex t cas e to b e t ri ed

.

5Ag ai n

, Pru i t t d i d n o t hav e a ri g h t t o b e p res en t at t h i s co nferen ce. See g en eral l y

Heywo o d v. St at e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 7 7 1, 7 7 4 (3 ) (7 4 3 SE2 d 1 2 ) (2 01 3 ) (d efen d an t h as n o ri g ht

t o b e p res en t at ben ch co nferen ces t h at i n vo l v e l og i s ti cal an d p ro ced u ral m at t ers ).

At t h e t h i rd co n feren ce, t h e part i es ag reed t o ex cu s e a p o t en t i al ju ro r wh o was

an em p l oy ee o f t h e Di s tri ct At t o rn ey ’ s o ffi ce. Th e t ri al co u rt t h en an n ou n ced i n o p en

co u rt

, i n t h e p res en ce o f Pru i t t

, t hat t h e ju ro r h ad b een ex cu s e d b ecau s e s h e was

em pl o y ed b y t h e Di s t ri ct At t orn ey ’ s Offi ce.

Th e las t co n feren ce at i s su e t o o k p l ace at t h e en d o f v o ir d i re. Du ri ng t h e b en ch

co n feren ce, th e ju ry was s el ect ed by th e s il en t m et h o d

. Im m ed i at el y fo l lo wi n g t h e

b en ch co nferen ce, t h e tri al co u rt an n o u nced i n o p en co urt t h e n am es o f t h e s el ect ed

ju ro rs

.

As t o t h e t wo co n feren ces t h at affect ed t h e ju ry co m p o s i t i o n , Pru i t t co rrect l y

as s ert s th at h e h ad th e ri g h t to b e p res en t

. See W i l l i a ms v. St a t e

, 3 00 Ga. 1 61

, 1 6 5 (3 )

(7 9 4 SE2 d 1 2 7) (2 0 1 6 ) ; Bu r n ey v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 G a

. 8 1 3

, 81 9 (3 ) (b ) (7 9 2 SE2 d 3 5 4 )

(ri g ht t o b e p res en t ex t en d s t o p ro ceed i n gs at wh i ch j u ry co m po s it i o n i s ad d res s ed );

Za mo r a v. S t at e , 2 9 1 Ga. 5 12 , 5 1 8 (7 ) (b ) (7 3 1 SE2 d 6 5 8 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (acco rd ).

Ho wev er, t h e f

a c t t h a t t h e ri g h t [t o b e pres en t ] ex i s t ed i n t hes e

ci rcu m s t an ces d o es n o t en d t h e an al y s i s

, as a d efen dan t i s free to wai ve

6t h i s ri g h t

, ei t h er p ers o nal l y o r by co u n s el

. Fo r a wai v er b y co u n s el t o be

b i n d i n g o n t h e d e f

e n d an t

, i t m

u s t b e m ad e ei t h er at t h e d efen d an t ’ s

ex p res s d i rect i o n o r i n op en co u rt i n t he d efen d an t ’ s p res en ce; i f i t i s

n o t

, h o w e v er, t h e wai v er m ay b e s u b s eq u en tl y m ad e effect i ve b y th e

d efen d an t ’ s acq u i es cen ce. Acq ui es cen ce, wh i ch i s a taci t co n s en t to act s

o r co n d i t i o ns

, m ay occu r w h en co u n s el m ak es n o o bject i o n an d a

d efen d an t rem ai n s s i len t aft er h e o r s he i s m ad e a w a r e o f th e

p ro ceed i n g s o ccu rri n g i n h i s o r h er ab s en ce.

W i l l ia ms

, 3 0 0 Ga. at 1 6 5– 1 6 6 (3 ) (ci t at io n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Pru i tt b ears t he bu rd e n o f s h o wi n g th at h e was d en i ed t he ri g h t t o b e p res en t

at b en ch co n feren ces

, w h i le t he St at e b ears t h e b u rd en o f s h o wi n g t h at Pru it t wai v ed

t h at ri g h t

. Gi l l es

p i e v. S t a t e , 3 3 3 Ga. Ap p . 5 65 , 5 7 2 (2 ) (a) (7 7 4 SE2 d 2 55 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

I n b o t h i n st an ces in wh i ch Pru i tt h ad t h e ri g h t t o b e p res en t, h e cl earl y

acq u ies ced to h i s ab s en ce at t h e b en ch c o n feren ces

. Pru i tt was p res en t i n t h e

co u rt ro o m wh i l e t h e b en ch co n feren ces o ccu rred an d

, t h o u g h h e m ay n o t h av e b een

p ri v y to each d is cu s s i o n

, h e was p res en t d u ri n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s an no u n cem en t s aft er

each o n e. At t h e t i m e, t h u s

, Pru i t t was n ot o nl y aware t h at h e had b een ex cl u d ed fro m

p art i ci p a t i o n i n t h e ben ch co n feren ces

, b u t al s o i n fo rm ed as t o t h e n at u re o f t h e

d eci s i o n s t h at were m ad e o u t si d e h i s p res en ce. Pru it t n ev er m ad e an y o b ject i o n

, an d

i n r e m a i n i n g s i l en t i n t h e face o f t h i s kn o wl ed g e, Pru i tt acq u i es ced to h i s ab s en ce

7fro m t h e b en ch co n feren ces

. See Heywo o d

, 2 9 2 Ga. at 7 7 5 (3 ) (W h ere t h e t ri al ju d g e

ad v is ed t h o s e i n t h e co urt ro o m

, i n cl ud i ng Ap p el l an t

, ab o u t t h e t o p i c o f a b e n ch

co n feren ce, Ap p el l an t ’ s fai l u re t o v oi ce an y o b ject i o n t o h i s ab s en ce co ns t i t u t ed

acq u ies cen ce); Za mo r a

, 2 9 1 Ga. at 5 1 9– 5 2 0 (7 ) ( c ) (fi n di n g acq u i es cen ce wh ere

d efen d an t was n o t o n l y aware t h at b en ch co n feren ces h ad t ak en p l ace i n h i s ab s en ce

b u t was al s o ap p ri s ed o f t h e n at u re o f t h e d i s cu s si on s an d reas o n f o r t h e co urt ’ s

res u l ti n g d i s m i s s al of a ju ro r); Hea t h v. St a te

, 3 4 9 G a. A pp

. 8 4, 9 0– 9 2 (3 ) (8 2 5 SE2 d

4 7 4 ) (2 0 19 ) (Defen d an t acq u i es ce d t o h er ab s en ce fro m b en ch co n feren ce wh ere

co u ns el p l aced o n t h e reco rd i n o p en co u rt t h at t wo ju ro rs h a d b e e n d i s m i s s ed

,

d efen d an t d i d n o t ex p res s an y co n cern ab o u t or o b ject i o n t o h er ab s en ce, n o r d i d s h e

as k fo r m o re d et ai l s ab o u t t h e m at t er.).

Pru i tt al s o arg u es t ha t h e w a s u n aware o f h i s ri g h t t o b e p res en t at t h e b en ch

co n feren ces ; h e t h erefo re d id n o t m ak e an in fo r m ed ch o i ce t o n o t at t en d t h em

.

Ho wev er, he ci t es n o au t h ori ty t o s up p o rt h i s arg u m en t t h at a defen d an t wh o i s

rep res en t ed by co u n s e l m u s t h av e act u al k n o wl ed g e of t h ei r ri g h t t o b e p res en t in

o rd er t o wai v e i t

. In W

a r d v. S t a t e

, 2 8 8 Ga. 6 4 1, 6 4 6 (4 ) (7 0 6 SE2 d 4 3 0 ) (2 0 1 1 ), t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a h el d t h at “ [s ] i n ce ap p el l an t s were no t i nfo rm ed o f t h e ex

p art e ex cu s al o f t he ju ro r, t h ey co u l d n o t k n o wi ng l y acq u i es ce t o t he wai ver o n t h e

8p art o f t h ei r a t t o r n e ys

. ” Acq u i es cen ce “ m ean s a t aci t co n sen t to act s o r co n d i t i o n s

,

an d i m p li e s a k n owl ed g e o f t h o s e t hi n g s wh i ch are acq ui es ced i n. On e can n ot

acq u ies ce i n a wro n g wh i l e i g n o ran t t h at i t h ad b een co m m i t t ed .” Id

.

Here, aft er s eei n g t h at t h es e b en ch co n feren ces to o k p l ace an d h eari n g t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s s u m

m at i o n aft er each o n e, Pru i t t rem ai n ed s il en t

. He t h erefo re acq u ies ced to

h i s ab s en ce wi t h k n owl ed g e th at t h e b en ch co nferen ces h ad b een co n d uct ed o u t s i d e

o f h i s p res en ce. Acc o rd i n g l y

, t h i s en u m erat i on i s wi t h o u t m eri t

, an d Pru i t t ’ s

co n vi ct i o n s an d s en t en ces are affi rm ed

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Do yl e, P. J., a n d

Ma r kl e, J., co ncu r

.

9