Holt v. State, 238 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Holt v. State, 238 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kendrick v. State (ga, 2010-07-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kendrick v. State
Ga. · 2010 · confidence medium
Had Kendrick been justified in using deadly force to prevent Taylor’s entry into his automobile for the purpose of committing the felony of motor vehicle theft, the theft was complete when Taylor drove away with the Cutlass, Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977), and the evidence showed that Kendrick did not use deadly force “until the justification for the use of deadly force [was] over....” Coleman, supra. Under the facts of this case, there could be no reasonable belief that firing a pistol at the driver of another car while driving on the road was “necessary to pr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Alvin v. State, 253 Ga. 740, 742 (1) ( 325 SE2d 143 ) (1985). 6 See Kinney, supra; OCGA § 16-1-7 (a) (1). 7 See Tesfaye v. State, 275 Ga. 439, 442 (4) ( 569 SE2d 849 ) (2002); Randolph v. State, 246 Ga. App. 141, 144 (1) ( 538 SE2d 139 ) (2000). 8 Tesfaye, supra. 9 See Randolph, supra (only one robbery committed when defendant entered store, forced manager to open store safe and place store money into bag, then falsely imprisoned manager in back of store and robbed him of his wallet). 10 See id. 11 See Phanamixay v. State, 260 Ga. App. 177, 180 (3) ( 581 SE2d 286 ) (2003) (defendants’ theft…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mangum v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id.; Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Anson v. State
Ga. · 1989 · confidence medium
Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Under such circumstances, “[t]he evidence establishing the commission of the one crime is not the same as the evidence which established commission of the other crime.” Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heard v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
“The evidence establishing the commission of the one crime is not the same as the evidence which established commission of the other crime.” Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parrish v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
Thus the question here is whether motor vehicle theft is a lesser *604 included offense under armed robbery as a matter of fact in this case." Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doucet v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Since "[m]otor vehicle theft, Code Ann. § 26-1813, is not included under ... robbery, Code Ann. § 26-1902, as a matter of law . . . the question here is whether motor *777 vehicle theft is a lesser included offense under... robbery as a matter of fact in this case.” Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ).
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. State (2×)
Ga. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606, 607 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977).
examined Cited "see" Fonseca v. State (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977); see also Anson v. State, 259 Ga. 471 (2) ( 383 SE2d 893 ) (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606 ( 238 SE2d 399 ) (1977); Parrish v. State, 160 Ga. App. 601 (2) ( 287 SE2d 603 ) (1981); see Bill v. State, 153 Ga. App. 131 (2) ( 264 SE2d 582 ) (1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trimble v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Holt v. State, 239 Ga. 606 ( 238 SE2d 399 ).
Holt
v.
the State
32204.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Sep 8, 1977.
238 S.E.2d 399
Harris, McCracken, Pickett & Jackson, William R. McCracken, for appellant., Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, John L. Mixon, III, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Hill.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
Hill, Justice.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, armed robbery and motor vehicle theft. The jury was authorized to find that the defendant put a knife to the throat of a cab driver and forced him to drive to a wooded area where the driver was ordered out of the car. The defendant took money from the driver at gunpoint, tied him to a tree and took the cab. The defendant contends that under the facts of this case motor vehicle theft was a lesser included offense under the charge of armed robbery and that under Code Ann. § 26-506 (a) or Painter v. State, 237 Ga. 30, 34 (226 SE2d 578) (1976), he cannot be convicted of motor vehicle theft.

[*607] Submitted April 8, 1977 Decided September 8, 1977. Harris, McCracken, Pickett & Jackson, William R. McCracken, for appellant. Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, John L. Mixon, III, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

No consideration of a question involving a lesser included crime can begin without a threshold inquiry: lesser included as a matter of law, or lesser included as a matter of fact ? See State v. Estevez, 232 Ga. 316, 319-320 (206 SE2d 475) (1974). Motor vehicle theft, Code Ann. § 26-1813, is not included under armed robbery, Code Ann. § 26-1902, as a matter of law. Thus the question here is whether motor vehicle theft is a lesser included offense under armed robbery as a matter of fact in this case.

A person who takes a motor vehicle belonging to another from that person by use of an offensive weapon would be guilty of both armed robbery and motor vehicle theft but could be punished for only one crime. Code Ann. § 26-506 (a). In Painter v. State, supra, the defendants took the victim’s car keys at gunpoint and one defendant fled in the victim’s car with $6,000 cash in the trunk. In that case the evidence of the taking (of the money as well as the vehicle) was the same.

In the case before us, however, the defendánt committed armed robbery when he took the victim’s money at gunpoint and he later committed motor vehicle theft when he drove off in the cab. The evidence establishing the commission of the one crime is not the same as the evidence which established commission of the other crime. The motor vehicle theft is not lesser included as a matter of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.