Court Opinion

ID: 9590756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:58:10.868885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:43.705421
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While concurring fully with the majority opinion to the effect that appellant’s presence and participation in preparing the videotaped photography-type pornography of the acts of sodomy support the judgment of conviction and sentences entered on the jury verdicts relating to the offenses of sodomy and sexual exploitation of children, reservations as to two cited cases are registered. Whitley v. State, 176 Ga. App. 364 (336 SE2d 301) (1985), is a two-judge case inasmuch as *128one judge “concurs in the judgment only.” Also Soltow v. State, 182 Ga. App. 716 (356 SE2d 750) (1987), which relies upon and cites Whitley, is itself a two-judge case inasmuch as one judge concurred specially, challenging the portion and division of Soltow which had cited Whitley. We do not need to cast the shadows of two questionable cases upon the instant case.
Decided January 31, 1989.
M. Muffy Blue, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Doris L. Downs, Benjamin H. Oehlert III, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.