MILLER, P. J., RICKMAN and REESE, JJ.
Rockdale County jury found George Cordova, Jr., guilty of
burglary in the first degree,  cruelty to children in the first
degree,  cruelty to children in the third degree,
terroristic threats,  and two counts of aggravated
assault. The trial court sentenced him to serve a
total of 65 years, with the first 40 years in confinement and
the remainder to be served on probation. The Appellant seeks
review of the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
and in allowing the State to introduce evidence of other
crimes, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict
him. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm. This is the
second appeal of the Appellant arising from events that
occurred on November 24, 2013. Viewed in the light most
favorable to the jury's verdict,  the record shows that R. G.
and J. M. lived on Gees Mill Road in Rockdale County with
their four children and a nephew on November 24, 2013. At
approximately 3:30 a.m. that morning, R. G. woke up and saw
an unknown person walk into her bedroom. She woke her husband
and told him "somebody's here." When R. G.
called out to the person he backed out of the room,
"crawling on his knees[.]" R. G. ran into the
living room and saw her nephew sleeping on the sofa. She ran
to her daughters' bedroom and saw a person
"hiding" behind the door. R. G. turned on the
light, saw that her two daughters, 11-year old N.M. G. and
12-year old J. M. G., were still sleeping, and immediately
yelled to J. M., "there's someone here." J. M.
G. ran into his daughters' bedroom and pushed and dragged
the intruder into the hallway. R. G. testified that she saw
her daughter's blanket wrapped around the intruder, while
her husband pushed him out of the bedroom. R. G. testified
that the intruder wore all dark clothing and "he looked
like he'd been drinking." Although R. G. wanted to
call the police, J. M. G. told her that "maybe [the
intruder] was sick and cold. He just came in to get a
blanket." J. M. watched the intruder leave the home.
J. M. checked all the residence's outside doors, R. G.
turned on the hallway light and cracked open her bedroom
door, and the family returned to bed. R. G. remained awake
however, thinking of the intruder, until she saw the hallway
light turn off. R. G. testified that she sat up but did not
get up because she "felt very nervous." Suddenly,
R. G. heard "low screams[ ]" coming from N.M. G. R.
G. ran to the children's room and saw the intruder
"poking" her other daughter, J. M. G., with a knife
while holding N.M. G.'s feet.
G. testified that the intruder told her and J. M. G. that if
they screamed, he would "cut" J. M. G. J. M. G.
testified that the intruder put the knife close to her neck,
and told her "not to say anything [or] call anybody or
he would hurt [her.]" She further testified that she
received a cut on her hand and thought the intruder was going
to "[k]ill" her.
yelled for J. M., who ran back into his daughters'
bedroom and struggled with the intruder. R. G. testified that
she yelled for her nephew to call the police while the
intruder tried to cut J. M. with the knife. J. M. pushed the
intruder out of the bedroom.
around 4:30 a.m., Rockdale County Sheriffs' deputies and
City of Conyers police officers responded to a call reporting
a possible burglary at the residence of R. G. and J. M.,
located on Gees Mill Road. While responding to the call, a
deputy saw a man, later identified as the Appellant, cross in
front of his vehicle from a "wood line" or
"clearing" located at the entrance of a nearby
subdivision. The deputy testified that he observed the
Appellant walking at approximately 5:20 a.m., wrapped in a
"bright colored Disney blanket." The deputy
testified that he questioned the Appellant. During the
questioning, the Appellant appeared to understand the
questions and responded to them. The Appellant told the
deputy that he had come from his "nephew and niece's
house." The deputy testified that the Appellant stated
he had obtained the blanket from his niece.
deputy identified State's Exhibit 19 as the blanket found
on the Appellant. The deputy read the Appellant the
Miranda warnings and placed him into custody. A
police officer searched the area and found a knife lying on
the ground close to the Appellant.
the trial, two videos of the police stop of the Appellant
were played for the jury. Also, the police interviews of J.
M. G. and N.M. G. were played for the jury.
trial, R. G. identified the intruder's knife found near
the Appellant as one that was missing from her kitchen, and
identified the blanket found near the Appellant as belonging
to her daughter. Also, she identified the intruder as the
Appellant in court. J. M. identified the knife found near the
Appellant as one of his family's kitchen knives. J. M.
also identified the blanket worn by the intruder as he left
J. M.'s home as one of his daughter's blankets.
State also introduced the testimony of M. L., who lived on
Millstone Manor, in "close proximity[ ]" to Gees
Mill Road. M. L. testified that the Appellant had attended a
birthday party at his (M. L.'s) residence on the evening
of November 23, 2013. Around 2:30 a.m. on the morning of
November 24, people began leaving the party, and M. L. asked
a friend where the Appellant was located. The friend pointed
to M. L.'s daughter's room. M. L. went to his
daughter's room, turned the light on, and saw the
Appellant there with M. L.'s five-year-old daughter and
his unconscious sister, who earlier that evening, had "a
little to much to drink." M. L. "grabbed . . . and
had dragged [the Appellant] out of the room[, ]" and
escorted him out of the home.
his conviction on the instant charges, the Appellant filed a
motion for new trial. The trial court conducted a hearing,
and denied the Appellant's motion. This appeal followed.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict and an appellant no
longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. This Court
determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the
standard of Jackson v. Virginia,  and does not
weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Any
conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence are for the jury
to resolve. As long as there is some competent evidence, even
though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make
out the State's case, we must uphold the jury's
standard of Jackson v. Virginia is met if the
evidence is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime
charged." With these guiding principles in mind,
we turn now to the Appellant's specific claims of error.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions for burglary, aggravated assault,
terroristic threats, and cruelty to children. Specifically,
the Appellant contends that the State failed to establish his
identity as the perpetrator of each of crimes charged in the
indictment. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence
for the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
Appellant's identity was established as the perpetrator
of each of the crimes, as indicted.
§ 16-7-1 (b) states, in relevant part that, "[a]
person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree
when, without authority and with the intent to commit a
felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within
an occupied . . . dwelling house of another[.]" The
State charged the Appellant in Count 1 of the indictment with
burglary for entering the Gees Mill Road residence"
without authority and with the intent to commit an
the record shows that neither R. G. nor J. M. gave the
Appellant permission to enter their home. Further, R. G.
identified the Appellant as the intruder who entered her home
twice without permission, held a knife to her daughter's
neck, and struggled with J. M. as he tried to remove the
Appellant from the home. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to
support the Appellant's burglary
Aggravated assault and terrorist threats
to OCGA § 15-5-21 (a) (2), "[a] person commits the
offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults: [w]ith
intent . . . a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or
instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is
likely to or actually does result in serious bodily
injury[.]" Under OCGA § 16-11-37 (b) (1) (A),
"[a] person commits the offense of a terroristic threat
when he . . . threatens to [c]ommit any crime of
violence[.]" Further, under OCGA § 16-11-37 (b) (2)
(A), (b) (3), "[s]uch terroristic threat shall be made
[w]ith the purpose of terrorizing another[, and n]o person
shall be convicted under this subsection on the
uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is
Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, the State charged the
Appellant with two counts of aggravated assault for
"assault[ing J. M. G. and J. M.] with a knife[, ] which
. . . placed [them] in reasonable apprehension of immediately
receiving a violent injury[.]" Further, the State
charged the Appellant in Count 5 with making a terroristic
threat "to commit . . . murder, a crime of violence,
with the intent to terrorize [J. M. G.]"
State presented evidence at trial that the Appellant held a
knife to J. M. G.'s neck upon entering her bedroom and
threatened to hurt her, in the presence of N.M. G., who heard
the Appellant's statement. Also, the record shows that J.
M. struggled with the Appellant, who was holding a knife, to
remove him from the girls' bedroom after the Appellant
gained entry a second time into J. M.'s home. Therefore,
the evidence was sufficient to support the Appellant's
convictions on the crimes as indicted in Counts 2, 3, and
Cruelty to children
OCGA § 16-5-70 (b), "[a]ny person commits the
offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such
person maliciously causes a child under the age of 18 cruel
or excessive physical or mental pain." Cruelty to
children in the third degree, prohibited by OCGA §
16-5-70 (d), is committed when "the primary aggressor[ ]
intentionally allows a child under the age of 18 to witness
the commission of a forcible felony, battery, or family
violence battery[ ]" or knows that a child under the age
of 18 is present and sees or hears such criminal act.
4 and 6 charged the Appellant with "caus[ing J. M. G.]
cruel and excessive mental pain[ by] awak[ening her] from
sleep and [placing] a knife to [her] head[, ]" while
[knowing that N.M. G.] was present and [saw] and [heard the