FI FTH DI VI SI ON M ERCI ER, C. J. , M C FA DDEN, P. J. , and RI CKM A N, J.

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 20, 2024



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

A 24A 0 503. PA D I LLA

- GA RCI A v . TH E STA TE.
R I C K M A N , J ud ge. Qu ebin I nes Pad illa- Garc ia w as tried by a ju ry a nd c o nv ic ted o f aggrav ated

sexu al battery and c hild mo lestatio n. On ap p eal, Pad illa- Garc ia c o ntend s that the trial

c o u rt erred in its instru c tio ns to the ju ry and that he mu st be r e- sentenc ed bec au se a sp ec ial c o nd itio n o f his p ro batio n is u nlaw fu l. 1 Fo r t he f o llo w ing r e aso ns, w e af

f irm his

c o nv ic tio ns, v ac ate a sp ec ial c ond itio n o f his p r o batio n, and r e mand f or resentenc ing. On ap p eal f

ro m a c r iminal c o nv ic tio n, w e v iew the ev id enc e in the light
mo st f a v orable to su p p o rt the j u ry’ s v e r d ic t, and t he d ef end ant no lo nger

1 This is the sec o nd ap p earanc e o f this case bef o re this Co u rt. I n P

a di lla

- Ga rci a v . S ta te , 36 9 Ga. A p p . 244 (89 3 SE2d 152) ( 2023), w e v ac ated the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er d enying his m o tio n f

o r new trial to c o n d u c t t h e p ro per analysis o f Pad illa- Garc ia’ s c o nstitu tio nal sp eed y trial c laim. Pa di lla

- Ga rci a , 36 9 Ga. A pp . at 247
.enj o ys a presu m p tio n o f inno c enc e. We do no t weigh t he ev id enc e o r

j u d ge the c red ibility o f the w itnesses, bu t d etermine o nly w hethe r t he
ev id en c e a u t h o r iz ed the j u ry to f ind the d e f

end ant gu ilty o f the c r imes beyo nd a r easo nable do u bt in ac c ord anc e w ith the stand ard set f o rth in J ac k so n v . V irginia, 443 U. S. 307 (9 9 SCt 27 81 , 6 1 LE2d 56 0) (1 9 7 9 ). (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Jo hn s o n v . S ta te , 340 Ga. A p p . 429 , 430 (7 9 7 SE2d 6 66 ) (201 7 ). So v iew ed , Pad illa- Garc ia rented a ro o m in the sev en year o ld v ic tim’ s ho me. The v ic tim’ s m o th e r r e nted the ro o m to earn so m e extra m o ney to help w ith the

v ic tim’ s u p c o ming birthd ay exp enses. One d a y in May 2020, t he v ic tim, t he v ic tim’ s mo ther, and Pad illa- Garc ia w ere

w atc hing a mo v ie to gether in the v ic tim’ s liv ing ro o m. A t so me p o int, the v ic tim’ s

mo ther lef

t the ro o m to tak e a p ho ne c a l l

. A f ter the v ic tim’ s mo ther lef t , Pad illaGarc ia to ld the v ic tim t hat he w as go ing to to u c h his bo tto m. The v ic tim to ld Pad illaG a rc ia “ no ,” bu t Pad illa- Garc ia p u lled him into his lap

. T he v ic tim testif ied that Pad illa- Garc ia “ started to uc hing me so hard

. I said that I w as go ing to tell my mo m, and

. . . he said n o . A n d h e d id it mo re hard er. ” The vic tim testif ied that he d id no t

2c o nsent to the to u c hing. The v ic tim f u rther testif

ied that Pad illa- G arc ia was to u c hing him o n the insid e o f

his bo tto m and that the to u c hing hu rt. W hen the v ic tim’ s mo ther retu r n e d , t h e v ic tim to ld her t hat Pad illa- Garc ia
to uc hed his bo t to m. The v ic tim then w ent to his neighbo r ’ s ho u se w here he r ep eated

w h a t P a d i lla- Garc ia had d o ne to his neighbo r. T he v ic tim w ent to the ho s p ital fo r a

sexu al assau lt nu rse’ s exam. The SA N E nu rse testif ied that t he v ic tim rep o rted that Pad illa- Garc ia to u c hed him insid e his bo tto m. The SA N E nu rse to o k a samp le f ro m the v ic tim’ s p erianu s. A f o rensic bio lo gist testif

ied that he test e d a nd c o mp ared sw abs c o ntaining Pad illa- Garc ia’ s D NA w ith the sw abs f ro m the v ic tim’ s anu s/p erianu s. P a d illaGarc ia’ s D NA p r o f

ile matc hed the D N A p ro f ile f ou nd o n t he v ic tim’ s anu s/p erianu s. A g r a n d j u ry ind ic ted Pad illa- G arc ia f o r aggrav a ted sexu al battery and c hild

mo lestatio n. Pad illa- Garc ia w a s c o nv ic ted o n bo th c o u nts. Pad illa- Garc ia f iled a

mo tio n f o r new trial, w hic h w a s d enied by the trial c o u rt. Pad illa- Garc ia ap p ealed f ro m that o rd er and this Co u rt remand ed the c ase b ac k to the trial c o urt. See P a di lla

- Ga rci a

v . S ta te , 36 9 Ga. A p p . 244 (89 3 SE2d 152) ( 2023). Fo llo w ing remand , the trial c o urt again d e nied Pad illa- Garc ia’ s mo tio n. This ap p eal f o llo w e d.

31
. Pad illa- G arc ia c o ntend s that the t rial c o u rt erred by instru c ting the j u ry in

tw o w ays: (a) as to the d ef initio n o f aggrav ated sexu al battery and (b) in telling them
t h a t “c o nsent of the vic t im is no t a d ef ense to this c rime. ” W e w ill ad d ress e a c h i n
tu rn. (a) O n the d ate o f the c rime, OCGA § 1 6 -6

- 22. 2 d ef ined aggrav ated sexu al battery as, (a) Fo r the p u r p o ses o f this Co d e sec tio n , the t e r m “ f o r eign o bj ec t”
means any a rtic le o r instru ment o ther than the sexu al o rgan of a p erso n. (b) A p erso n c o mmits the o f f ense o f aggrav ated sexu al battery w hen he
o r she intentio nally p enetrates w ith a f o reign o b j e c t the s exu a l o r gan o r anu s o f ano ther perso n w itho u t the c o nsent of t hat p erso n. (c ) A p erso n c o nv ic ted o f the o f

f ense o f aggrav ated sexu al battery shall be p u nished by imp riso nment f

o r li f e o r b y a sp lit sentenc e that is a term o f imp riso nment fo r no t less than 25 years and no t e x c e e d i ng lif e imp riso nment, fo llo w ed by p ro batio n f o r lif e, and shall be su bj ec t to the sentenc ing and p u nishment p ro v isio ns o f Co d e Sec tio ns 1 7 -1 0- 6
. 1 a nd 1 7 -1 0- 7.
OCGA § 1 6

- 6

- 22. 2 (d ) (2020). I n betw e en the d ate o f the c rime and the d ate o f trial, the legislatu r e ad d ed the f ollo w ing su b sec tio n to OCGA § 1 6- 6 -22. 2, (d ) W hen the a lleged v ic tim is u nd er the age o f 1 6 years and the c o nd u c t is f o r the pu rp ose o f sexu al aro u sal o n the p art o f the a lleged of f end er o r

4alleged vic tim , c o n s e n t o f the alleged v ic tim shall no t be a d ef e nse to a p r o sec u tio n u nd er t his Co d e sec tio n; p ro vid ed , ho w ev e r, that if at t h e time o f the o f

f e nse the alleged v ic tim is a t least 1 3 bu t less than 1 6 years o f age and the ac cu sed is 1 8 years o f age or yo u nger a nd no mo re than 48
mo nt h s o l d er than the alleged v ic tim, t his su bsec tio n shall no t be ap p lic a ble.
OCGA § 1 6

- 6

- 22. 2 (d ) (2023). Pad illa- Garc ia arg u e s th a t the trial c o urt erred bec au se it gav e the j u ry the amend ed d ef

initio n o f the c rime rather than the statu to ry d ef initio n o f the crime at the time it w as c o m mitted , thu s reliev ing the State o f the bu rd en o f p ro v ing lac k o f

c o nsent.

“ [ I ]n general, a c rime is to be c o nstru ed an d pu nished ac c o rd ing to the
p ro v isio ns o f the law exi s t i n g a t the time of its c o m missio n. ” (Citatio n and
p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) To rres v . S ta te , 36 1 Ga. A p p . 1 49 , 1 54 (86 3 SE2d 39 9 ) (2021 ). A c c o rd ingly, the trial c o u rt erro neo u sly inst r u ct e d t h e j u ry that “ c o nsent of t he v ic tim is no t a d e f

ense to this c rime. ” B e c au se Pad illa- Garc ia mad e no o bj ec tio n to t he c harge, w e rev iew it f o r p lain

erro r. See Va s qu ez v . S ta te , 306 Ga. 21 6 , 225 (2) (830 SE2d 1 43) (201 9 )

. W e ap p ly a f o u r- p art test w hen ev alu a ting alleged p lain erro r s in j u ry c harges;

5First, there mu st be an e r r o r o r def ec t—so m e s o rt o f d ev iatio n fro m a legal ru le—that has no t b e e n i n tentio nally relinqu ished o r aband o ned , i. e. , a f f irmativ ely waiv ed , by the a p p ellant. Sec o nd , the legal erro r mu st be c lear o r o bv io u s, rather than s u bj ec t to reaso nable d isp u te. Third , the
erro r mu st hav e af

f e c ted the ap p e llant’ s su bstantial rights, w hic h in the
o rd inary c ase means he mu st d emo nstrate that it af f e c ted the o u tc o m e o f the trial c o urt p ro c eed ings. Fo u rth a nd f inally, if the abo v e three p ro ngs are s atisf

ied , the a p p ellate c o u rt has t he d isc retio n to remed y the
erro r—d isc retio n w hic h o u ght t o be exerc ised o nly if the erro r serio u sly af f ec ts the fairness, integrity o r p u blic r ep u tatio n o f j u d ic ial pro c eed ings. (Citatio n and p u nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) I d

. Pretermitting whether this w as a n erro r t hat has no t been relinqu ished o r aband o ned and whether it w as c lear o r o bv io u s, Pad illa- Garc ia c anno t sho w that the

erro r af f ec ted the o u t c o me o f the trial c ou rt p ro c eed ings.

“ While reliev ing the State f ro m p ro v ing an element o f the c rime can c ertainly be harmf u l erro r af

fec ting the o u tc o me o f a p ro c eed ing it is u nlik ely, giv e n the

ev id ence p r e s e n t e d i n t h is c a s e, t hat the instru c tio n a t issu e af fec t ed [Pad illa- Garc ia’ s]

su bstantial rights. ” (Citatio n, p u nc tu a tio n, and f o o tno te o mitted .) S ta t

e v . W i lli a ms , 308 Ga. 228, 232 (2) (838 SE2d 7 6 4) (2020 )

. H er e , t he v ic tim w as sev en years o ld

w hen Pa d i l la- Garc ia intentio nally penetrated his anu s with his f inger, the v ic tim

6testif

ied that he d id no t co nsent t o the c o nd u c t, a nd th e v ic tim t estif ied that he

ex p e r i e n ce d s u bstantial pain f ro m the exp erienc e. A d d itio nally, Pad illa- Garc ia d id no t

c laim that the to u c hing w as co nsensu al or f or so m e no n- s exu a l p u rp o se. A c c ord ingly,

u nd er the c irc u mstanc es o f this c ase, c o nsid ering the a ge o f the v ic tim, that the

c o nd u c t w as o bv io u sly sexu a l in natu re, and that the ev id enc e of gu ilt w as v ery stro ng, it is unlik ely t he trial co u r t ’ s instru c tio n a f f e cted the o u t co me o f the p ro c eed ing. See id

. (b) A lternativ ely, Pad illa- Garc ia c o n t e n d s t hat t he trial c o u rt imp ro p erly
p rej u dged the fac t s b y instru c ting the j u ry that co nsent o f the vic tim is no t a d ef ense
to the c rime.

“ It is erro r f

o r any j u d ge, d u ring a ny p hase o f any c riminal c ase, to exp ress o r intimate t o the ju ry the j u dge’ s o p inio n a s t o whether a f ac t at issu e has o r has no t been p ro ved or as to the gu ilt o f the ac c u sed

. ” OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 5 7 (a) (1 ). Fail u re to mak e a t imely o bj ec t io n to an alleged v io latio n o f OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 57 (a) (1 ) w aiv es ap p ellate rev iew , unless s u c h a v io latio n c o nstitu tes p lain erro r. See OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 57 (b).

7A s in D iv isio n 1 (a), p retermitting whether the trial c o u rt erred and was a c lear

and o bv io u s v io latio n o f OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 57 (a) (1 ), Pad illa- Garc ia c anno t p ro v e that the trial c o u rt’ s allege d l y imp ro p er j u dic ial c o mment af f ec ted t he o u t co me o f the
p ro c eed ings. See W

i l li s v . S t a te , 304 Ga. 1 22, 1 29 (2) (c ) (81 6 SE2d 6 56 ) (201 8).
2. Pad illa- Garc ia co ntend s that he mu st b e r e - sentenc ed bec a u se the sp e c ial

c o nd itio ns o f his p r o batio n p ro hibiting c o ntac t w ith mino rs is u nlaw f u l bec au se it is

o v e rly bro ad and lac k s s p e c i f i c i ty. W e agree that the co nd itio n at issu e mu st be

v ac ated

. A tr i a l c o u rt has bro a d d isc r etio n in sentenc ing to imp o se c o nd itio ns reas onably related t o the natu re and circ u mstanc es o f the o f f ense a nd rehabilitativ e go als of p r o batio n. B u t su c h c o nd itio ns mu st be stated with
reaso nable sp ec if

ic ity to af f o rd t he p ro batio ner no tic e o f t he gro u p s a nd p lac es he mu s t av o id

. A nd the c o nd itio ns mu st no t be s o bro ad ly w o rd ed
as to enc o mp ass gro u p s and p lac es no t ratio nally r elated t o the p u rp o se o f the sentenc ing o bj ec tiv e. (C i ta tio n and p u nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) Brya n t v . Sta te , 36 3 Ga. A p p . 349 , 352 (2) 87 0 SE2d 33) (2022). The sp ec ial c ond itio n a t issu e p ro hibits “ u nsu p erv ised c o ntac t, w hether d irec tly in p ers o n o r ind irec t ly thro u gh any means o f c ommu nic atio n o r thro u gh

8emp lo yment, v o lu nteer ac tiv ity o r otherw ise w ith any c hild u nd er the age o f sixteen (1 6 ), inc lu d ing yo u r o w n c hild ren, no r with any p erso n u nable t o giv e c o nsent bec au se

o f mental o r emo tio nal limitatio ns. ” H ere, the sp ec ial co nd itio n at issu e f a ils to p ut Pad illa- Garc ia o n no tic e o f the
gro up s a nd p lac es he is requ ired to av o id

. The c o nd itio n “ c o u ld be ap p lied to p ro hibit [Pad illa- Garc ia] f

ro m sho p p ing at v irtu ally any sto re, v isiting any re s ta u r ant, o r literally go ing to any o ther lo c atio n in w hic h [Pad illa- G a rc ia] w ou ld c o m e into c o ntac t

w ith the general p u b lic

. ” ( Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Brya n t , 36 3 Ga. A p p . at 353 ( 2). A c c o rd ingly, bec au se t he sp ec ial c o nd itio n is to o bro a d , w e v ac ate the
sp ec ial co nd itio n, and r emand this c a se to the trial c o u rt f o r re- s entenc ing o nly a s to the v ac ated c o nd itio n. See Brya n v . S ta te ,

_ _ _ Ga. A p p .

_ _ _ ( 5) (Case N o. A 24A 0048; d ec id e d J u ne 5, 2024; Brya n t , 36 3 Ga. A p p . at 354 (3). Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed i n p a rt, s en ten ce v a c

a ted in pa rt; a n d ca s e rema n ded fo r

res en ten ci n g. Merci er, C

. J. , a n d McFa dden

, P. J. , co n c u r .

9