BARNES, P. J., MCMILLIAN and MERCIER, JJ.
out-of-time appeal, Devon Haslam appeals from the judgment
entered after a jury convicted him of rape, aggravated
sodomy, false imprisonment, robbery by force, and hindering a
person making an emergency phone call. As his sole
enumeration of error, Haslam asserts that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions for rape and two
counts of aggravated sodomy.
Georgia law, "[a] person commits the offense of rape[,
inter alia, ] when he has carnal knowledge of [an adult]
female forcibly and against her will. . . . Carnal knowledge
in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female
sex organ by the male sex organ." OCGA § 16-6-1
(a). "A person commits the offense of aggravated
sodomy[, inter alia, ] when he or she commits sodomy with
force and against the will of the other person[.]" OCGA
§ 16-6-2 (a) (2). Sodomy is defined as "any sexual
act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or
anus of another." OCGA § 16-6-2 (a)
appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the
defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of
innocence[.]" Walker v. State, 267 Ga.App. 155,
155 (1) (598 S.E.2d 875) (2004). That is because it is within
the province of the jury to determine the credibility of
witnesses, including the victim, and the weight to be given
to their testimony. McIntosh v. State, 247 Ga.App.
640, 641 (1) (545 S.E.2d 61) (2001). An appellate court
cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury; we
neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of
witnesses. Our task is simply to ascertain whether the
evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict
under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). See
Nolan v. State, 255 Ga.App. 63, 63 (1) (564 S.E.2d
464) (2002). If some competent evidence exists to support
each essential element in the State's case, even if
contradicted, the jury's verdict must be upheld.
Walker, 267 Ga.App. at 155 (1).
viewed, the evidence at trial showed that Haslam responded to
an advertisement placed by the victim, who was working as a
prostitute. The two arranged via text messages to meet at a
hotel for sex. The victim let Haslam into her hotel room, and
when she turned around at Haslam's request, he grabbed
her by the neck. Haslam told the victim not to scream and,
with his arm still around her neck, instructed her to take
off her "bottoms." Haslam then shoved the victim
down on the bed and began to penetrate her both vaginally and
anally for a period of three to four minutes, causing her to
experience pain and bleed from her anus. Haslam ordered the
victim to wipe off her face and threatened to kill her. He
then forced his penis into her mouth. Afterwards, Haslam
penetrated her both anally and vaginally again. Afterwards,
Haslam took the victim's money and cellphone and snatched
the hotel phone out of the wall; he then raped her anally
again. At that point, he tied the victim's wrists to her
ankles, placed a towel in her mouth, and left.
doctor, who later examined the victim testified that her
pelvic exam showed signs of possible injuries to the vaginal
cavity and anal region, which were consistent with the
victim's story that she was forcibly penetrated.
that this and other evidence at trial was sufficient to
support Haslam's convictions for rape and aggravated
sodomy as charged in this case. See Ruffin v. State,
333 Ga.App. 793, 793 (1) (777 S.E.2d 262) (2015) ("the
victim's testimony, standing alone, would have been
sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty");
Bradberry v. State, 297 Ga.App. 679, 681 (1) (678
S.E.2d 131) (2009) (sufficient direct and circumstantial
evidence of forcible rape by victim's testimony that she
was forced against her will and that intercourse was
painful). Although on appeal, Haslam points to
inconsistencies and discrepancies between details in the
victim's report of the incident to her boyfriend, health
workers, and law enforcement, including how she met Haslam,
whether she was working as a prostitute, and the nature of
the acts performed, she consistently maintained that she had
been sexually assaulted by Haslam. Moreover, any "such
inconsistencies and how they may impact the credibility or
veracity of witnesses are for a jury to reconcile."
Dinkins v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (3) (Case No.
S16A1850, decided March 6, 2017). See also Vega v.
State, 285 Ga. 32, 33 (1) (673 S.E.2d 223) (2009)
(“‘It was for the jury to determine the
credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or
inconsistencies in the evidence.'”) (citation
omitted). Because the record contains evidence supporting the
jury's findings on the charges of rape and aggravated
sodomy, we affirm.
Barnes, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
 Haslam was charged in three separate
indictments arising out of three separate incidents involving
three separate victims. The indictments were consolidated for
trial, and Haslam was convicted on each of them. Haslam filed
three appeals, each based on a separate indictment, and this
Court denied his motion to consolidate those appeals. Haslam
does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his convictions in Case Nos. A17A0226 and A17A0228, but
instead only argues that his convictions for rape and
aggravated sodomy in Case No. A17A0227 are not supported by
the evidence. Nevertheless, Haslam argues that if we grant
him a new trial on those two charges, he would be entitled to
a new trial on all charges in all three indictments. We find
no merit to that argument. See Wiggins v. State, 280
Ga. 268, 272 (2) (626 S.E.2d 118) (2006). Accordingly, we
have dismissed, by separate order, the appeals in Case Nos.
A17A0226 and A17A0228 for failure to enumerate any error by
the trial court in connection with those cases. See
Adamson v. Sanders, 279 Ga. 187, 188 (611 S.E.2d 44)
(2005); Wiring Solutions, LLC v. Astra Group, Inc.,
335 Ga.App. 723, 726 (781 S.E.2d 597) (2016).
 Haslam does not contest the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his other convictions
in this case, and thus we ...