Court Opinion

ID: 9583342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:37:53.545824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:58.261152
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 1 and 2. With respect to Division 3,1 concur because, although the record we have does not show when notice was given to defendant that the State would seek an enhanced sentence, what controls is that it also does not show that defendant objected to the amount of notice when the State introduced evidence of the prior convictions at the sentencing phase.
In Howard’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, filed in the trial court, he alleges that he was notified ten minutes before the start of trial that the State planned to use two prior convictions in aggravation of punishment. There is no evidence of this. The State’s attorney, in the letter response to the motion, asserted that “Mr. Howard and his trial attorney, Mr. Grayson Lane were most definitely aware of his prior convictions and myself and Mr. Lane had discussed the fact that the State would use these in aggravation of punishment long before the Motion to Suppress and the trial of the case.” The court’s order denying the motion does not state how the court resolved this factual dispute, if it did.
It is appellant’s responsibility to show error by the record. Arnold v. State, 198 Ga. App. 514, 516 (3) (402 SE2d 312) (1991). Since that has not been done concerning the time notice was given, we cannot address that point. Howard has shown no reversible failure to comply with OCGA § 17-10-2 (a).
But even if advance notice was not given at all, Howard cannot complain because there is nothing in the record to show he objected at trial. The Supreme Court held in Armstrong v. State, 264 Ga. 237, 239 (3) (442 SE2d 759) (1994): “[W]e affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals because defendant did not interpose an objection when the state introduced defendant’s prior conviction into evidence during the pre-sentencing phase of the trial. The error is deemed waived. [Cits.]” The same result is inevitable here.
*263Decided September 8, 1998.
Daniel B. Kane, David R. Trainor, for appellant.
Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, Charles D. Howard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.