Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than ten years, by a fine of not more than $100,000.00, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(Code 1981, §16-8-83, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1805, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 16.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1992, in the second sentence of subsection (e), "coconspirator" was substituted for "co-conspirator".
- Evidence supported a conviction for operating a "chop shop" when the defendant admitted storing a vehicle that the defendant did not own and selling the vehicle to another person, and the car had a drive-out tag, a replaced steering column, and a missing door lock when the defendant obtained the vehicle; the person who provided the vehicle to the defendant had no proof of ownership, and when the defendant sold the automobile, multiple parts were missing, there was a discrepancy in the vehicle identification numbers on the windshield and on the engine, and the defendant admitted that the defendant had removed parts of the engine and failed to replace the parts before selling the vehicle. Maclin v. State, 287 Ga. App. 220, 651 S.E.2d 138 (2007).
Evidence that auto parts and a shell of a stolen car lacking a vehicle identification number plate were found at the defendant's home, that the defendant was always working on cars, and that it was apparent that a lot of work on cars occurred at the home was sufficient to convict the defendant of theft by receiving a stolen car, O.C.G.A. § 16-8-7(a), and operating a chop shop, O.C.G.A. § 16-8-82(1). Xiong v. State, 295 Ga. App. 697, 673 S.E.2d 86 (2009).
Because the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to infer that the original vehicle identification numbers (VINs) on the vehicles allegedly registered to defendant were removed and replaced with false VINs, defendant was properly convicted of violating O.C.G.A. § 16-8-83(c)(1). Jarrett v. State, 299 Ga. App. 525, 683 S.E.2d 116 (2009).
- Although the defendant characterized the jury's verdicts finding the defendant guilty of operating a chop shop and of falsifying a vehicle identification number as mutually exclusive, the two guilty verdicts returned by the jury could be logically reconciled as a finding that a person wilfully removed or falsified the identification number of a vehicle does not logically exclude a finding that the person owned, operated, or conducted a premise in which the person knowingly altered a vehicle identification number with the intent of misrepresenting the vehicle's identity, and the defendant's challenge was actually predicated upon the inconsistent verdict rule, which had been abolished in Georgia. Wilmott v. State, 326 Ga. App. 1, 755 S.E.2d 818 (2014).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-05-29
Snippet: (theft by receiving stolen property), OCGA § 16-8-83 (chop shop offenses), and OCGA § 16-14-4 (Racketeer