Court Opinion

ID: 9623864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:45:08.313338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:35.866274
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
It is fairly obvious when both orders are read (the order of February 26 and the order of May 15) that what the court meant by its reaffirmance of the February 26 order was that it still considered the scientific evidence insufficient to support the trafficking conviction. The district attorney had argued that the testimony could be construed to mean that the requisite weight of cocaine had been found by the crime laboratory. The court concluded that even if the laboratory’s measurements had in fact shown the weight and purity were present so as to constitute “trafficking,” the State did not elicit the evidence to prove it. The court found, however, that “there was ample evidence to sustain a conviction of possession of cocaine.”
The court did not reaffirm the grant of a new trial. Instead, in consequence of its evidentiary conclusion as to the lesser offense, it *786immediately turned to the question of remedy and ordered that the trial judge “amend the judgment of conviction in a manner not inconsistent with this finding.” It cited Hogan v. State, 193 Ga. App. 543 (1) (388 SE2d 532) (1989). See also Choate v. State, 158 Ga. App. 8 (279 SE2d 459) (1981), where this Court did precisely what the court below in this case did, i.e., direct that a conviction and sentence be entered for the lesser included offense which the evidence supported. The trial judge followed the direction and sentenced defendant for possession of cocaine.
It would defy logic to conclude that the court simultaneously ordered two entirely inconsistent remedies, i.e., a new trial and a final adjudication on possession in lieu of trafficking.