After a jury trial, Robert Campbell was found guilty of hijacking a motor vehicle Count 1, aggravated assault Count 3, possession of a firearm during the commission of these crimes Counts 2 and 4, armed robbery Counts 5, 7, 9, and 10, possession of a firearm during the commission of one of the armed robberies Count 8, and criminal attempt to commit the offense of armed robbery Count 6. Campbell appeals his convictions on all counts, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in his sole enumeration of error. We affirm. 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 ,1 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 verdict.2 So viewed, the evidence shows that Campbell and, variously, three companions, went on a four-day crime spree, from September 4 to 7, 2006, stopping at various locations in and around Valdosta and Lowndes County to commit crimes against six victims. Campbell and his companions carried three weapons, including a 9 millimeter handgun and a BB gun, both belonging to Campbell. The group, often with Campbell at the wheel, drove from one crime scene to another in cars owned by Campbell’s grandmother: a Chrysler New Yorker and a red Pontiac Grand Prix. Upon reviewing security footage from a Video Warehouse, where the first incidents occurred, and a Wal-Mart, where some of the subsequent crimes occurred, police identified the Grand Prix and the Chrysler, respectively, as being present at or near times when crimes were committed at those locations; police also saw on the security videos men wearing clothing identified by victims and witnesses as being worn by Campbell and his companions during the commission of the crimes. Two of Campbell’s companions, Antonio and Shamon Denson,3 pled guilty to robberies connected with this case and testified at Campbell’s trial; and Campbell also testified in his own behalf. Campbell’s third companion, Jermaine Demps, did not testify. As to the events which occurred outside the Video Warehouse, Campbell asserts insufficient evidence underlying his convictions for hijacking a motor vehicle, aggravated assault, and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of those crimes. The evidence shows that the victim, Rick Carter, left the Video Warehouse and saw Campbell, whom he identified at trial, standing beside his car. When Carter got into the car, Campbell insisted that the vehicle belonged to him and had been stolen, and demanded paperwork showing ownership. Carter testified that he thought Campbell “just wanted to take my car” and that when he resisted, Campbell rested a gun on the sill of the open driver’s side window. Carter grabbed the gun, was pulled out of his car window, and tussled with Campbell on the ground. The gun discharged, shooting Carter in the leg. Campbell fled without taking the car. Campbell argues he did not draw the gun, but rather that it fell from his waistband and discharged accidentally, and points to his own and the victim’s trial testimony that the shot could have been accidental. However, the victim, another witness, and even Campbell in an interview with police, said Campbell pulled out the gun. Campbell’s companion, Shamon, testified that Campbell told him after the incident that he “pulled back and shot Rick Carter.”
As to Campbell’s conviction for hijacking a motor vehicle, “a person commits the offense of hijacking a motor vehicle when such person while in possession of a firearm . . . obtains a motor vehicle from the person or presence of another by force and violence or intimidation or attempts or conspires to do so.”4 Thus, the statute specifically includes attempt as a method of committing the crime of hijacking a motor vehicle;5 and in order to commit attempt, the defendant must be found to have taken a “substantial step” toward the commission of the hijacking.6 Campbell’s assertion of ownership and the fact that Carter was pulled out of the vehicle constitute substantial steps toward the commission of a hijacking.7 As to Campbell’s conviction for aggravated assault, a person commits an assault when he either “attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or . . . commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury”;8 and “a person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he . . . assaults another . . . with a deadly weapon.”9 Campbell asserted ownership of the car and displayed a deadly weapon when Carter resisted. Carter’s act in grabbing the gun and in tussling with the man who held it indicates a reasonable apprehension of harm, and Carter suffered serious injury from the shot. As to Campbell’s convictions for possession of a firearm, it is undisputed that Campbell was in possession of a 9 millimeter handgun during the commission of these crimes,10 and that he fled the scene.11
