McFADDEN, C. J., McMILLIAN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE
McFadden, Chief Judge.
jury trial, Zane Stodghill was convicted of five counts of
aggravated child molestation, five counts of aggravated
sodomy, and three counts of enticing a child for indecent
purposes. The trial court denied Stodghill's motion for
new trial, and he appeals. Stodghill argues that the evidence
does not support the convictions, that the trial court erred
by denying a competency evaluation, and that trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to ask for a continuance. We hold
that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions,
that the trial court did not err by denying a competency
evaluation, and that trial counsel was not ineffective. So we
appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant
no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence."
Garza v. State, 347 Ga.App. 335 (819 S.E.2d 497)
(2018) (citation omitted). We do not weigh the evidence or
judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only
whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, "any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61
L.Ed.2d 560) (1979) (emphasis omitted).
viewed, the evidence showed that the victims were three
brothers, twins who were nine years old at the time of their
outcries and their younger brother, who was eight years old
at the time of his outcry. Stodghill's mother
occasionally watched the boys while their father was at work,
sometimes over night. Stodghill would bring the boys into his
bedroom, where he would force them to perform oral sex upon
him and anally penetrate them with his penis. Stodghill
threatened to hurt them if they told anyone about the abuse.
boys disclosed the abuse to a neighbor couple who watched
them. The couple notified the boys' father, who took them
to a child advocacy center where they were interviewed.
Recordings of their interviews were played for the jury and
the boys testified at trial.
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
convictions because it consisted exclusively of the
victims' testimony, which was not credible given certain
discrepancies. We disagree because
the testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to
establish a fact. And, to the extent that any witness'
testimony was inconsistent or contradicted, we note that it
is the function of the jury - not this [c]ourt - to resolve
such conflicts in the evidence. The jury clearly resolved the
conflicts against [Stodghill] and we will not disturb the
jury's findings on appeal.
McGhee v. State, 263 Ga.App. 762, 763 (1) (589
S.E.2d 333) (2003) (citations and punctuation omitted). See
OCGA §§ 16-6-2 (a) (2) (defining aggravated
sodomy), 16-6-4 (c) (defining aggravated child molestation),
16-6-5 (a) (defining enticing a child for indecent purposes).
argues that the trial court erred in denying his
counsel's pretrial request for a competency evaluation of
Stodghill. We disagree.
record shows that the week before the trial, defense counsel
made an oral request for a continuance and for a mental
health evaluation of Stodghill's competency. Counsel
explained that Stodghill was low functioning and that he had
been completely uncommunicative at a meeting the week before.
The trial judge began questioning Stodghill, asking if he
knew the charges against him; if he understood the purpose of
a jury trial, the role of the district attorney, and the
trial procedure; if he knew his attorney; if he knew the role
of the judge; and whether he would be able to participate in
the trial by communicating with his attorney. Stodghill
answered the trial court's questions. The judge then gave
defense counsel an opportunity to discuss the case with
Stodghill and his family members.
defense counsel informed the court that Stodghill seemed to
comprehend their discussion and that "based on his
demeanor and communication [that she observed that day, she]
would not have requested the mental health evaluation. . .
." The trial judge stated that "based on everything