A recent ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Terel King on multiple charges, including fleeing and attempting to elude an officer. King had appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that one of the fleeing charges should have been merged with others, but the appellate court disagreed.
The Incident and the Charges
The case stems from an incident in Thomaston, Georgia, where police officers attempted to apprehend King, who had outstanding felony warrants. The situation quickly escalated into a high-speed chase.
Officer Bobby Poore initiated a traffic stop, but King fled in a Cadillac Escalade. The chase involved multiple officers and resulted in King driving recklessly, running stop signs, and weaving through traffic. Officer Sidney Corley eventually disabled King’s vehicle by ramming it.
King then exited the Escalade and fled on foot. He entered a bystander’s Nissan Pathfinder and drove off, with Officer Poore briefly in contact with the vehicle. King was later arrested and charged with a total of 18 counts.
Following a jury trial, King was convicted on 17 of the counts, including aggravated assault against an officer, theft by taking a motor vehicle, multiple counts of fleeing and attempting to elude an officer, obstruction of an officer, reckless driving, failure to stop at a stop sign, and weaving over the roadway. He was sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
The Merger Issue
King’s appeal focused on the trial court’s handling of the fleeing charges. Specifically, he argued that Count 4, one of the fleeing charges, should have been merged with Counts 3 and 5. The trial court had merged Counts 3 and 5, but denied King’s request to merge Count 4.
The court’s decision hinged on whether the charges arose from a single course of conduct. If the crimes stemmed from a single course of conduct, the court would then perform a unit-of-prosecution analysis to determine whether the course of conduct involves one or more distinct “offenses” under the statute.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision, focusing on whether the charges arose from a single course of conduct. The court examined whether King acted with the same or differing intents, if the crimes occurred at the same place, and whether they occurred at the same time or were separated by a meaningful interval.
Counts 3, 4, and 5 all related to fleeing after being signaled to stop by Officer Little. The Court found that Counts 3 and 5 were related to King’s flight in the Escalade. Count 4, however, involved King fleeing in the bystander’s Pathfinder.
The court determined that Count 4 involved a different course of conduct because it occurred at different locations and was separated by a sufficient interval of time. The court noted that King’s actions in Count 4 were distinct from the earlier events: a foot chase, a physical altercation, and the use of a different (stolen) car driven through different roads, newly endangering other members of the public.
The Court’s Reasoning
The appellate court referenced the case of *Gibbs v. State*, where the court had found that two fleeing counts should be merged. In *Gibbs*, the counts differed only in how they described the fleeing conduct. The court found that because Count 4 involved a different vehicle and a different set of actions, it was not part of the same course of conduct as Counts 3 and 5.
The court emphasized that the interval between the events, even if just minutes or seconds, is not the sole factor in determining if the charges should be merged.
The Ruling
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Count 4 was not part of the same course of conduct as Counts 3 and 5. Therefore, the conviction on Count 4 was upheld, and King’s motion for a new trial was denied on this ground.