![]() Based on this investigation, Herring was indicted on two counts of sexual exploitation of children under OCGA § 16-12-100 (b) (for creating and possessing the images in exhibits 1 and 2) and two counts of child molestation under OCGA § 16-6-4 (a) (for committing the acts depicted in the images in exhibits 1 and 2). was no longer living with Herring, but Herring would come to J. confirmed that the photos were taken in her home and that the child in the photos was A. F., where they saw many of the same items that were visible in the photos. Investigators visited the home of Herring’s ex-girlfriend, J. Investigators determined that all of the photos depicted the same child. Those other photos were introduced as exhibits 3-20 and 23. ![]() Other photos, similar to exhibit 2, showed more of the rug and other household items in the 2 background. Those two photos were introduced at trial as State’s exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. In addition to Herring’s resume, a recent tax return, and identifiable photos of Herring, the data from his accounts included a digital image of a prepubescent child’s vagina with a man’s penis slightly touching or penetrating it, and a second digital image of a prepubescent child’s vagina in which it was apparent that the child was wearing a red or pink shirt and was sitting or kneeling on colorful rug. Google provided a trove of electronic information in response. Background (a) Factual Background Acting on a tip from Google, an investigator with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s child exploitation and computer crimes unit obtained a search warrant for Herring’s Google accounts. And for reasons we discuss below, he has not met the heavy burden required to establish that his counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Herring’s indictmentvariance argument is moot because he was not sentenced on the count for which the indictment allegedly varied from the proof at trial (that count was merged for sentencing). I want to find out who the F is doing this.”-did not clearly and unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent. The trial court correctly rejected Herring’s Miranda argument because taken in context, the statements he relies on-”I’m done. On appeal, he contends that (1) the trial court erred by admitting statements he made to police after he invoked his right to remain silent (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict because the crime described in the indictment varied from the proof offered at trial and (3) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in several ways. Charles Keith Herring was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child for possessing a digital image file of the uncovered genitals of his pre-pubescent daughter. ApIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia A22A0273. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |