Court Opinion

ID: 9586788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:15:06.161816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:51.730970
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in the opinion. With respect to Division 1, the state’s effort to stretch OCGA § 16-9-33 (f) to cover the circumstances here is rendered untenable by the legislature’s provision of OCGA § 16-9-31 to cover what apparently occurred in Pike County. The distinction between financial transaction card theft (OCGA § 16-9-31) and financial transaction card fraud is discussed in Harris v. State, 166 Ga. App. 202, 204 (4) (303 SE2d 534) (1983). See also Thomas v. State, 176 Ga. App. 771, 774 (337 SE2d 344) (1985).