FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, 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

June 4, 2024



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

A 24A 0 439

. FI N N EGA N v

. TH E STA TE.

D I L L A R D , Presid ing J u d ge.

Fo llo w ing a j u ry trial, J u stin Finnegan ap p eals sev eral c o nv ic tio ns and his

sentenc e f

o r o ff enses inv o lv ing k id nap p ing, d ru g po ssessio n, and do mestic vio lenc e.
Sp ec if ic ally, Finnegan a rgu es that (1 ) as to the k id nap ping c harge, his trial c o u nsel w as

inef f ec tiv e f o r requ e sting a d ef

ense- o f -o thers j u ry instru c tio n, r ather t h a n an

“ omnibu s- j u s tif

ic a tio n” c harge; and (2) the trial c o u rt erred by imp osing sep arate

sentenc es f

o r tw o sep a rate c o u n t s c o ntaining id entic a l allegatio ns—exc ep t f o r the

d ates o n w hic h the c rimes o cc u rred

. Fo r the f o llo w ing r easo ns, w e a f

f irm Finnegan’ s

c o nv ic tio ns, bu t v a c a te his sentenc e a nd remand f o r resentenc ing in a manner

c o nsistent w ith this o p inio n.V iew ing the ev id e nc e in the light mo st f av o rable to t he j u ry’ s v erd ic t, 1 the

rec o rd sho w s 2 that in 201 9 , Finnegan met S. B

. o nline, and e v entu ally, he ask ed if she

w anted t o meet him t o smo k e m arij u ana. S. B

. agreed , and sh e t h e n w ent to
Finnegan’ s ho me w here he liv ed with his f ather and bro ther. Onc e she ar r i v ed , Finnegan and S. B

. “smo k [ed ] weed , sno r t[ed ] Xanax, and [had ] sex. ” A c c o rd ing to

S. B

. , she “ nev er really lef t [ his ho u se] af

ter that. ” A nd d u ring her time there, S. B

. , Finnegan, and Finnegan’ s bro t her regu larly d id d ru gs to gether.

On J u ne 1 7 , 2021 , S. B

. d ec id ed to leav e Finnegan’ s ho u se and “ get high

so mew here else. ” S o , s h e o r d e red a n Uber and attemp ted to hid e her p ho ne f ro m
Finnegan to k eep him f

r o m d isc o v ering her p lan. B u t Finnegan d id f ind o u t a n d he

ref u sed to let her leav e the ho u se w hen t he Uber arriv ed

. S. B

. then w ent into “ p anic

mo d e” and rep eated ly attemp ted to go u p the stairs and leav e thro u gh the f r o nt d o o r;

bu t Finnegan fo llo w ed her and “ p u shed [her] bac k in the ho use. ” A f t e r he d id so , S.

1 S ee, e

. g. , C ra w v

. S ta te , 36 9 Ga. A pp

. 231 , 231 (89 3 SE2d 1 34) (2023).

2 A s d isc u ssed belo w , Fi n n eg an w as c onv ic ted o f v ario u s c riminal o f f enses inv olv ing the same v ic tim, bu t w hic h o c c u rred o n mo re than o ne o c c asio n. On ap p e al,

o ther than c hallenging h i s sentenc e, Finnegan’ s o nly c laim o f erro r relates to his k id nap p ing o f

f ense, w hic h the ind ic tment alleged o c c u rred on J u ne 1 7 , 2021

. So , f o r the sak e o f ef

fic ienc y, w e rec o u nt o nly t he und erlying f ac ts related to t he k id nap p ing

c o nv ic tio n.

2B

. w ent b ac k do wn the stairs and tried to leav e thro ugh a s lid ing glass d o o r; bu t o nc e

again, Finnegan p rev ented her fro m d o ing so

. I nd eed , ev ery time S. B

. c ame c lo se to
exiting the ho u s e or was able to d o so , Finnegan “ w ou ld [p ush] her b ac k in. ” A nd

eac h time S. B

. w as able to get o u tsid e o f the ho me, Finnegan “ w o u ld tac k le [her]

f ro m behind and j ust stay o n to p o f [her]. ”

A c c o rd ing t o S. B. , s he w anted to leav e bec au se she w a s go ing to ano ther man’ s

ho u se to bu y d ru gs, and she need ed to get aw a y f ro m Finnegan. One time, S. B

. almo st

mad e it t o the Uber, bu t Finnegan w as able to p u ll her b ac k into the ho u se yet again.

A nd o nc e insid e, Finnegan go t o n t o p o f S. B

. , and she began sc r e aming. Presu mably,

the Uber d riv er called 9 1 1 ; bu t in any ev ent, po lic e o ff ic ers a rriv ed and to ld Finnegan

and S. B

. to o p en the f

ro nt d o o r o r they w ou ld k ic k it d o w n. Finnegan c o mp lied , and

let the o ff

ic ers insid e the ho me. Then, af ter disc ov ering d ru gs, p o lic e obtained a

searc h w arrant, and u ltimately, arrested bo th S. B . and Finnegan.

Later, Finnegan w as c harged , v ia ind ic tment, w ith k id nap p ing, p o ssessio n o f a

sc hed u le I I c o ntro lled su bstanc e, v io lating a f amily

- v i o l enc e ord er (tw o c o u nts),

a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t f

a m i l y v i o l e n c e , f

a l s e i m p r i s o n m e n t , p o s s e s s i o n o f
methamp hetamine, and s imp le battery f amily v io lenc e. Fo llo w ing t rial, Finnegan w as

3c o nv ic ted o f the f o rego ing o ff

enses

. 3 Finnegan then f

iled a mo tio n f

or a new trial,

w hic h the trial c o u rt d e nied af t er a hearing. This ap peal f o llo w s.

1

. Finnegan argu es his trial c o u n s el w a s inef f ec tiv e f o r requ esting a j u ry

instru c tio n o n d ef

ense o f o thers u nd er OCGA § 16

- 3- 21 instead o f an “ om n i b u sj u stif ic a tio n” c harge u nd er OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 20 (6 ). 4 W e d isagree.

To p rev a il o n a c laim o f inef f ec tiv e a ssistanc e o f c o u nsel, a c laimant mu st sho w

“ b o th that c ou nsel’ s p erf ormanc e w as d ef

ic ient and that the d ef

ic ient perf

ormanc e

p rej u dic ed [him]. ” 5 A nd as t o d ef ic ient p erf

ormanc e , a c laimant mu st sho w that “ his

atto r ney p e rf

o r med at t rial in an o bj ec tiv ely unreaso nable w ay c o nsid ering all the

3 Finnegan w as also c harged w ith three o ther o ff enses inv o lv ing S. B

. o r d ru gs, bu t he w as ac qu itted o f

tho se c harges.

4 A s d isc u ssed in

fra , Finnegan argu es he w as j u stif ied in restraining S. B

. f

ro m leav ing his ho me bec au se she “ w as o n the v erge of engaging in inherently d angero u s behav io r—hav ing sex and d o ing d ru gs w ith s o m eo ne she d id no t k no w

. ” Setting asid e that hav ing sex and d o ing d ru gs w ith a s tranger is the ho w he m et S. B ., Finnegan fails
to ac k no w l e d g e t h e d a n g e r o u s situ atio n s he w as alread y in w ith him v io lently attac k ing her w hile she w as attemp ting to leav e him.

5 McAlli ster v

. S ta te , 351 Ga. A p p

. 76 , 93 (6 ) (830 SE2d 443) (2 0 1 9 ) ( c i t i n g S tri ckla n d v

. W

a s hi n gto n , 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8, 6 87 (I I I ) ( 1 04 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 6 7 4) (1 9 84)).

4c irc umstanc es and in the light o f p rev ailing p ro f essio nal no rms. ” 6 I mp o rtantly, w hen

rev iew ing c o unsel’ s p e r f o r m anc e, w e ap p ly a “stro ng p resu mp tio n t hat c o u nsel’ s

rep resentatio n w a s w ithin the ‘ w id e range’ o f reaso nable p ro f essio nal assistanc e. ” 7

I nd eed , in o rd er to d emo nstrate that he w as p rej u d ic ed by t h e p e r f o rmanc e o f his

c o u nsel, a c laimant “ m u st p ro v e a r easo nable p r o b ability that, bu t f o r c o u nsel’ s

u np ro f essio nal erro rs, the resu lt o f the p ro c eed ing w o u ld hav e been d if f erent. ” 8 W ith

the f o r ego ing in mind , w e tu rn to Finnegan’ s sp ec if ic c laim o f

erro r.

6 Ja cks o n v

. S ta te , 306 Ga. 26 6 , 27 2 (5) (8 3 0 SE2d 9 9 ) (201 9) (p u nc tu atio n
o mitted ) ; a cco rd Ro mer v

. S ta te , 29 3 Ga. 339 , 344 (3) (7 45 SE2d 6 37 ) (201 3).

7 Ja cks o n , 306 Ga. at 27 2 (5) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); a c c o r d R o mer , 29 3 Ga. at 344 (3).

8 Ja cks o n , 306 Ga. at 27 2 (5) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); a cco rd Arn o l d v

. S ta te , 29 2 Ga. 26 8, 26 9 (2) (7 37 SE2d 9 8) (201 3).

5A t trial, Finneg a n ’ s c o u nsel requ ested a d ef ense- o f

- o t hers j u ry instru c tio n,

u nd er OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 21 , 9 as to t he k id nap ping c harge, and that requ est w as d enied

. 1 0

A nd d u ring the mo tio n- fo r

- new

- trial hearing, Finnegan’ s c o u nsel a greed there w a s a

“ p ro blem” w ith the d ef

e nse- o f

- o thers instru c t io n b ec a u se that statu te ap p lies o n l y

w hen an imminent threat is inv o lv ed ; and no su c h threat existed when Finnegan

k id nap p e d S. B

. A s a resu lt, Finnegan no w argu es his trial c o u nsel w as inef fec tiv e f o r

f ailing to requ est a n “ o mnibu s- j u stif ic atio n” j u ry instru c tio n u nd er OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 20
(6 ). 1 1 B u t Finnegan a band o ned this c laim b y f ailing to su p p o rt it w ith c itatio ns to the

9 S ee OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 21 ( a) (“ A p erso n is j u stif ied in threatening o r u sing f o rc e against ano ther when and t o th e e x t ent that he o r she r e aso nably believ es that su c h threat o r f o rc e is nec essary to d ef

end himself o r herself o r a third p erso n against su c h

o ther’ s imminent u se o f unlaw fu l f o rc e; ho w ev er, exc ep t as p ro vid ed in Co d e Sec tio n 1 6

- 3- 23, a p erso n is j u stif

ied in u sing f

o rc e w hic h is intend ed o r lik ely to c au se d eath

o r great bo d ily harm o nly if he o r she reaso nably believ es that s u c h f o r c e is nec essary to p r ev e nt d eath o r great bo d ily inj u ry to himself o r herself o r a third p e rso n o r to p rev ent the c ommissio n o f a f o rc ible f elo ny. ” ).

1 0 N either Finnegan no r the State p r o vid e a rec o rd c itatio n t o w here Finnegan’ s
c o u nsel r e q u e s ted t his ju ry c harge, bu t it is u nd isp u t e d that he d id so

. A nd at the

mo tio n- f o r- new

- trial hearing, Finnegan and the State ind ic ated that the c harge

c o nf erenc e w as no t t ransc ribed

. Regard less, giv en the d ef ic ienc ies in Finnegan’ s ap p ellate brief d isc u ssed i n fra , a transc rip t o f the c harge c onf erenc e is no t nec essary to reso lv e this ap p eal.

1 1 S ee OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 20 ( listing f iv e d if f erent c irc umstanc e s in w hic h a p erso n may assert j ustif

ic atio n as a d ef

ens e u nd er t he statu te and pro v id ing in the sixth

6rec o rd o r any legal au tho rity. 1 2 I nd eed , altho u gh Fi n n e g a n —in the tw o p ages he

d ev o tes to this c laim—rec ites the basic stand ard of rev iew f or inef f e c tiv e- assistanc e

o f

- c o u nsel c o ntentio ns u nd er S tri ckla nd , he f

ails to p r o v id e any meaningf u l argu ment

as to the sp ec if

ic the f ac ts o f this c ase o r statu te at issu e. 1 3
Finnegan fu rther a rgu es that he w as j u stif ied in v io lently attemp ting to p rev ent

S. B

. f ro m leav ing his ho me bec au se he b eliev e d t hat he w as sav ing her f ro m ano ther

p o tentially d angero u s s i t u a t i o n

— i

. e. , meeting so meo ne she d id no t k no w to o btain

d ru gs in exc hange fo r s ex

. B u t a gain, he p ro v id es no rec o rd c itatio ns to ev id enc e

p resented at trial t o sho w that w as her p lan; and in any ev en t , h e c i t es n o legal

au tho rity establ i s h ing that—ev en if his b elief were c o r rec t—it w o u ld w arrant a
j u stif ic a tio n d ef

ense u nd er OCGA § 16

- 3- 20 (6 ). In f ac t , Finnegan p ro v id e s no legal

au tho rity as to the c irc umstanc es u nd er w hic h that s tatu te ap p lies. Finally, it strains

su bse c t i o n that “ [t]he f ac t that a p erso n’ s c o nd u c t is j u stif ied is a d e f

ense to p ro sec u tio n f

o r any crime based o n that c o nd u c t[,] [and ] [t]he d ef e nse of j u stif

ic atio n
c an be c laimed

. . . [i]n all o ther instanc es w hic h stand u p o n the same fo o ting of reaso n and j u stic e as tho s e enu merated in this artic le” ).

1 2 S u pra no tes 1 4- 1 6

.

1 3 S u pra no t es 1 4- 1 6

.

7c red u lity to ac c e p t Finnegan’ s c o nt entio n that he w as j u stif ied in p r ev e nting S. B

.
f ro m engaging in po ten ti

ally d a ngero u s c o nd u c t by v io lently attac k ing her.

A s w e hav e p rev io usly exp lained , an ap p ellant aband o ns a c laim o f erro r w hen

h e p ro v id es o nly c itatio ns t o the mo st basic legal au tho rity bu t no Geo rgia law t o

su p p o rt his s

peci fi c c laim o f erro r. 1 4 Su f

f ic e it to say, mere c o nc lu so ry statements are

“ no t the typ e o f

meaningf u l argu ment c o ntemp lated by o u r ru les. ” 1 5 Simp ly p u t, by

f ailing to mak e any meaningf u l legal argu m ent o r pro v id e rec o r d citatio ns to su p p o rt

1 4 S ee S ea ls v

. S ta te , 350 Ga. A p p

. 7 87 , 7 89 (1 ) (830 SE2d 31 5 ) (201 9) (ho ld ing that a c laim o f erro r w as a band o ne d w h en the o nly legal au tho rity cited by the ap p ellant w as the stand ard f o r c o nsid ering the issu e at hand ); Gu nn v

. S ta te , 342 Ga. A p p

. 6 1 5, 6 23- 24 (3) (804 SE2d 1 1 8) (201 7 ) (ho ld ing t h a t t h e a p p e l l ant aband o ned tw o
c lai m s o f er r o r when, beyo nd o ne o r tw o c a se c itatio ns to “ the mo st basic legal

au t h o r i ty ” a s to t he p u rp o se o f the legal r u le at issu e and the general s tand ard ap p lic able to c laims o f inef fec tiv e assistanc e o f c o u ns e l , t h e a p p ellant p ro v id ed no legal au tho rity to su p p ort his s p eci fi c c o ntentio n s a s to ho w and w hy the trial c o urt

c o mmitted erro r).

1 5 Fa rmer v

. D e

p’ t o f C o rr. , 346 Ga. A p p

. 387 , 39 4 (2) (81 6 SE2d 37 6 ) (201 8); W o o ds v

. Ha ll , 31 5 Ga. A p p

. 93, 9 6 ( 7 26 SE2d 5 9 6 ) (201 2) (“ [A ]n assertio n o f erro r f o l l o wed by a c a se c itatio n is no t legal argu ment, w hic h requ ires, a t a minimu m, a d isc ussio n o f the ap pro p riate law as ap p lied to the r e l e v ant f ac t s. ” (p u nc tu atio n
o mitted ) ).

8this c laim o f erro r, Finnegan aband oned his argu ment t hat he rec eiv e d ine f f ec tiv e

assistanc e o f

c o u nsel in any resp ec t. 1 6

2. Next, Finnegan argu es the trial c o u rt e rred by imp o s ing s ep arate sentenc es

f o r tw o c ou nts in the ind ic tment that mad e id entic al allegatio ns exc e pt f or the range

o f dates on w hic h the c r ime was c o mmitted

. The State agrees, and bind ing p rec ed ent

requ ires that w e d o so as w ell.

B oth Co u nts 4 and 5 o f Finnegan’ s ind ic tment charged him w ith v io lating a

f amily- v io lenc e o rd er. Sp e c if ic ally, Co u nt 4 alleged that Finnegan

betw een t he 7th d ay o f A u gu st, 2021 , and t he 1 2th d ay o f A ugu st, 2021 , in Chero k ee Co u nty, Geo rgia, d id then a nd there, k no w ingly and in a

no nv io lent manner v io late a c riminal f amily vio lenc e o r d e r , to wit: a n

o rd er of p retrial release issu ed as a resu lt o f a n arrest f o r an ac t o f f

amily

v io lenc e, su c h o rd er hav ing been issu ed against said ac c u sed , w hic h restric ted him f

ro m any c o ntac t w ith [S. B

. ], by hav ing d irec t in p erso n

1 6 S ee Ro b i n so n v

. Ro b i

n son , 2 3 9 G a

. 323, 324 (1 ) (236 SE2d 6 6 0 ) (1 9 7 7 ) (d eeming argu ment aband oned f

o r p u rp o ses o f ap p eal w hen it w a s no t su p p orted by argu ment

o r c itatio n o f au tho rity as requ ired by ru les); Pa tters o n v

. Pro f’ Res ., In c. , 1 40 Ga. A p p

. 31 5 , 31 6 (3) (231 SE2d 88) (1 9 7 6) (“ [W hen], as here, the brief co ntains no t hing mo re than a statement o f c o n t e ntio ns u nsu p p o rted by c itatio n o f legal au tho rity, the

enu meratio ns of e rro r mu st be d eemed aband o ned und er R ule [25 (d ) (1 ) ] o f this [C]o urt. ” ); s ee a ls o Ct. A p p

. R

. 25 (d ) (1 ) (i) ( “ A ny enu meratio n o f erro r that is no t

su p p o r t e d i n the brief by c itatio n o f au tho r ity or argu ment may be d eemed aband o ned

. ” ).

9c o ntac t with [ S

. B

. ] , c ontrary to the law s o f this State, the go od o rd er,

p eac e, and d ignity thereo f

.

A nd the langu age in Co u nt 5 is id entic al to that in Co u rt 4, exc ep t f o r the range o f

d ates o n w hic h the of

fenses alleged ly o cc u rred

. A nd as no ted s u pra , Co unt 4 alleged

Finne g a n v i o lated a f

amily- v io lenc e o rd er betw een A u gu st 7 , 2021 , and A u gu st 1 2,

2021 , w hile Co u nt 5 alleged that he d id the s ame b etw een A u gu st 1 5, 2021 , and

Oc to ber 20, 2021

.

A s rightly ac kno wled ged by the State, u nd er t hese c irc u mstanc es, Geo rgia law

p ro hibits the trial co u rt f

ro m imp o sing s ep arate sentenc es fo r e ac h c o u nt u nless the
alleged d ates are material to the allegatio ns. So , if t h e c o u n t s in an ind ic tment are

“ id entic al exc ep t f

o r the d ates alleged , and t he d a t e s w ere no t mad e essential

av erments, o nly o ne c onv ic tio n c an stand

. ” 1 7 M o reo ver, neither p arty has su ggested

1 7 Tho ma s v

. S ta t

e , 352 Ga. A p p

. 6 40, 6 42- 43 (1 ) (a) (835 SE2d 6 40 (201 9 ); s ee D u kes v

. S ta te , 31 1 Ga. 5 6 1 , 57 0

- 7 2 (1 ) ( 858 SE2d 51 0) (2021 ) (ho ld ing that, as a matter

o f su bstantiv e d o u ble j eo p ard y, d ef end ant’ s tw o c o nv ic tio ns f o r illegal p ossessio n o f

a f irearm mu st merge fo r sentenc ing p u rp oses w hen the ind ic tment alleged that t h e p o ssessio n o c c u rred at tw o dif f erent times, bu t d id no t allege that t h e t i m es w ere material to the c harged o f f enses); S ta te v

. McC

ra ry , 259 Ga. 830, 830 (1 ) (388 SE2d 6 82) (1 99 0) (“ The three c harges d if f ered f ro m o ne ano ther o nly w ith resp ec t to the

av erment o f [the] d ate, and in no ne o f the three was the d ate ma d e a n e s s e n t ial element. Sinc e all the d a t e s alleged f all w ithin the p erio d of the statu t e o f limitatio n,
o nly o ne s entenc e c an be imp o sed

. ” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )); Ha mmo n d v

. S ta te, 36 8

10that the d ates alleged in Co unts 4 and 5 w e re material o r essential to the c harge that

Finnegan v io lated a f

amily- v io lenc e o rd er. A nd tho se c o unts in the ind ic tment d id no t

ind ic ate the r ange o f d ates at issu e w ere material to t he charges. 1 8 A s a resu lt, u nd er

Ga. A p p

. 27 7 , 280- 82 (1 ) ( 89 0 SE2d 40)(2023), cert. den i ed (D ec

. 1 9 , 2023) (ho ld ing trial co urt d id no t err in merging three c hild

- m olestatio n c o nv ic tio ns f or sentenc ing p u rp o ses w hen the c harged o f f enses o c c u rred in “d if

f erent resp ec tiv e p erio d s o f time” and t h e i n d i c tm ent d id no t a llege tho se times w e r e material to t he c harges,

no ting that “ [l]o ng- stand ing p r ec ed ent in t his Co u rt a nd in the Su p reme Co u rt d o es
no t p ermit u s to abrid ge a d ef end ant’ s d o u ble j e o p ard y pro tec tio ns” ); Qu a n ta n i lla

- S o li s v. S ta te , 36 7 Ga. A p p

. 39 7 , 406 (5) (b) (885 SE2d 323) ( 2023), cert. den i e d (Oc t. 1 1 , 2023) ( ho ld ing the trial c o u rt erred by sentenc ing def end ant o n tw o
c o u nts o f c hild mo lestatio n ind ic tment are id entic a l, exc ep t f o r the d ates, w hic h w ere
no t a lleged to b e material” ); Jo n es v

. Sta te , 333 Ga. A pp

. 79 6 , 800 (2) (7 77 SE2d 480) (201 5) (“ [D ]ates alleged in Co u nts 5 and 6 w ere no t mad e material av e rments o f the ind ic tment, and theref

o re [d ef end ant] may be sentenc e d o n o n l y o ne o f the tw o
c o u nts. ” ). The State c ontend s this p o int o f law s ho u ld be rev isi t e d b ec au se if an
o f fense o c c u rred on d if

f e rent oc c asio ns, it lo gic ally f o llo w s that they w ere sep ar a t e
o f f enses. B u t as the State rightly ac k no wled ges, w e are bo u nd by cases o f o u r Su p reme Co u rt a f f irming t he c u r rent law o n this issu e. S ee Tho mps o n v

. S ta te , 358 Ga. A p p

. 553, 557 (1 ) (855 SE2d 7 5 6 ) (2021 ) (“ A ltho u gh [the ap p ellant] a r gu es t hat this w e ll settled

au tho rity sho u ld no lo nger be f o llo w e d in Geo rgia, w e are bo u nd by the o p inio ns o f the Su p reme Co u rt. ” ); W

ho rto n v

. S ta te , 321 Ga. A p p

. 335, 339 ( 741 SE2 d 6 5 3 ) (201 3) (no ting that “v ertic al stare d ec isis d ic tates that w e f aithf u lly ad here to the p rec ed ents established by the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo r gia” )

.

1 8 S ee Tho ma s , 352 Ga. A p p

. a t 6 42 (1 ) (a) (“ I t is a lo ngstand ing princ ip le o f Geo rgia law that a date or range o f d ates alleged in an ind ic tment, w itho u t mo re, is no t

a material all e g atio n o f t he ind ic tment, and , c o nsequ ently, un les s the i n di ctmen t

s p eci fi ca lly s ta tes tha t the alleged d a tes a re ma teri

a l , the State may p r o v e that the alleged

c rime w as c o mmitted o n a ny d ate w ithin the statu te o f limitatio n. ” (emp hasis

su p p lied ) ).

11these c irc u mstanc es, the trial c o u rt erred in imp o s ing sep arate sentenc es f o r Co u nts

4 and 5. Co nsequ ently, w e v ac a te Finnegan’ s sentenc e and remand f o r resentenc ing

in a manner c o nsistent w ith this o p inio n.

Fo r all these r e aso ns, w e af f irm Finnegan’ s co nv ic tio ns, vac ate his s en t enc e,

and remand f

o r resentenc ing in a manner c o nsistent w ith this o p inio n.

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed, s en t en ce v a ca ted in pa rt, a n d c a s e rema n ded f

o r res e n ten ci

n g.

Bro wn a nd Pa dgett, JJ. , co n cu r

.

12