☢ test - Í

project. “At trial, [Deputy] Parrish testified that the drug transactions occurred at the back corner of a store on Hawkins Drive, which was ‘straight across’ the street from the Summerville Housing Authority property. He also stated that a portion of the housing project was located on the same side of the street as the store. He described the distance between the back of the store and the Summerville Housing Authority property as being the same distance from the witness stand to the second or third row bench in the courtroom. [Deputy] Brock testified about the location of the housing project in relation to a location know as the ‘Vann House.’ Brock stated that the store faced Highland Avenue at the corner of Hawkins Drive and that as one drives up Hawkins Drive, one first comes to the store's parking lot and then the side of the store. He further described that the Vann House was directly across Hawkins Drive from the store, and the housing project run by the Summerville Housing Authority ‘starts’ directly behind the Vann House. Brock opined that the distance between the corner of the store and the housing project as being ‘a lot less’ than 1,000 feet. From his measurements at the time, the distance between a tree in the store parking lot to the Housing Authority property was 111 feet. Brock also stated that the housing projects were for low income families.” Carter v. State, 319 Ga.App. 609, 737 S.E.2d 714 (January 25, 2013). Conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school reversed. “As noted by Carter, the statute at issue does not apply to colleges or universities. Compare OCGA § 16–11–127.1(a)(1) (statute criminalizing weapons in school safety zones applies to elementary or secondary schools, or the campus of any technical schools, vocational schools, colleges or universities). As it is clear that the crime took place on a university campus, OCGA § 16–13–32.4 has no application.” Evans v. State, 318 Ga.App. 706, 734 S.E.2d 527 (November 20, 2012). Convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and within 1000 feet of public housing, a park, and a school, affirmed; 1. evidence sufficed to prove proximity of crime to public housing, park and school. “ Officer Mathews testified that he personally used a handheld global positioning system (“GPS”) unit to measure the distance between the location of the confiscated marijuana and the adjacent public housing, public park, and elementary school, and found the distances to be 115.95 feet, 248.15 feet, and 947.97 feet, respectively.” 2. Officer’s testimony that Fairmont Park was “a public park” was sufficient to establish that it was, in fact, a park as contemplated by OCGA § 16-13-32.5(a). Robinson v. State, 314 Ga.App. 545, 724 S.E.2d 846 (March 2, 2012). Evidence supported conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a public housing project, and related offenses. Evidence showed: “that the public housing complex was under the jurisdiction of a housing authority”; “that the location consisted of dwelling units,” as opposed to offices or vacant land; and that the dwelling units were “occupied by low and moderate income families.” “[I]n the context of the Housing Authorities Law, public assistance housing denotes housing for low and moderate income families. OCGA §§ 8–3–1, 8–3–2. Here, the [defendant’s] girlfriend confirmed that her apartment was “public assistance housing, run by the city and county,’ as compared to merely stating that her apartment was public housing. See Mahone v. State, 296 Ga.App. 373, 374–376(3) (674 S.E.2d 411) (2009) (recognizing that a development described by a witness only as a public housing project owned by a city may not fall within the definition of a housing project under OCGA § 16–13–32.5(b); conviction reversed because the only evidence to establish that the cocaine sale took place on property located within 1,000 feet of a public housing project was testimony from a narcotics investigator that the cocaine buy took place less than 1,000 feet from a government housing development; there was no testimony that the government housing development was the property of a housing authority or that it was occupied by low and moderate-income families).” Distinguishing Johnson v. State, 214 Ga.App. 77 (447 S.E.2d 74) (1994) (testimony that housing project was “city owned” didn’t establish “that the projects were dwelling units occupied by low or moderate income families.”). Jones v. State, 304 Ga.App. 109, 695 S.E.2d 665 (May 17, 2010). Defendant’s conviction for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of public housing affirmed. “Georgia law does not require that the State show the defendant knew he was within 1,000 feet of public housing to secure a conviction under OCGA § 16-13-32.5.” Mahone v. State, 296 Ga.App. 373, 674 S.E.2d 411 (March 3, 2009). Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute near public housing project reversed; evidence was insufficient to show that offense occurred near public housing project. “Here, a person who had been employed as a narcotics investigator by the county sheriff's department testified that the cocaine buy took place less than 1,000 feet from a government housing development. But … he did not testify that the government housing development was the property of a municipal housing authority.” Distinguishing Menefee v. State, 226 Ga.App. 725, 726(2) (487 S.E.2d 489) (1997) (“a police officer's description of the property as ‘a City of Marietta Housing Authority housing project’ was sufficient to establish that it was a public housing project within the meaning of OCGA § 16-13-32.5”). Compared to Johnson v. State, 214 Ga.App. 77, 79-80(2) (447 S.E.2d 74) (1994),