Smiley v. State
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Duron v. the State (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)
- Ellison v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
- Clark v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
David Smiley was convicted of cocaine possession under OCGA § 16-13-30 (a) and appeals his sentence of 30 years imposed under OCGA § 16-13-30 (c) and the recidivism statute, OCGA § 17-10-7. Smiley argues that his previous conviction for cocaine possession with the intent to distribute was not a previous conviction for cocaine possession and, therefore, he should not have been sentenced for a second offense of cocaine possession under OCGA § 16-13-30 (c). We disagree and affirm.
We have held that a conviction for trafficking in cocaine under OCGA § 16-13-31 constitutes a second violation of possession with intent to distribute cocaine under OCGA § 16-13-30 (b), triggering the mandatory life sentence required by OCGA § 16-13-30 (d). Gilbert v. State, 208 Ga. App. 258, 260 (1) (430 SE2d 391) (1993). In that case, we said:
To conclude that Gilbert’s prior conviction under OCGA § 16-13-31 does not trigger the recidivist provisions of OCGA § 16-13-30 (d) would lead to an illogical result since Gilbert’s first conviction was for a more serious version of the offenses outlined in OCGA § 16-13-30 (b). It appears that OCGA § 16-13-30 (b) was a lesser included offense of Gilbert’s conviction under OCGA § 16-13-31.
Id. Accord Brundage v. State, 231 Ga. App. 478, 480 (4) (499 SE2d 408) (1998); Cody v. State, 222 Ga. App. 468, 471 (4) (474 SE2d 669) (1996).
A similarly illogical result would apply here if Smiley’s previous conviction for possession with intent to distribute did not equal a con
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.