☢ test - Í

be charged. [Cits.] In this case, the perpetrators planned an armed robbery, then threatened [victim] with guns and tried to take his money, his drugs, and his car. They were unsuccessful in their attempt to take the car. Given that the robbery and attempted robbery occurred at the same location, within a short period of time, and involved a single victim, Holloway committed a single offense when he took or attempted to take [victim’s] money, drugs and car at gunpoint. [Cit.] Therefore, the attempted armed robbery was included in the armed robbery and should have merged into the armed robbery for conviction and sentencing purposes. [Cit.]” Carter v. State, 266 Ga.App. 831, 598 S.E.2d 122 (April 7, 2004). Theft by receiving is not a lesser included offense to robbery. Moore v. State, 265 Ga.App. 511, 594 S.E.2d 734 (February 11, 2004). Robbery by sudden snatching requires proof that the victim “‘was conscious that something was being taken away from him, and that for any reason he was unable to prevent it; and consequently the only difference now between robbery of this class and larceny from the person is that in the latter case the property is abstracted without the knowledge of its possessor, but if the possessor becomes conscious, even in the taking, that his property is being taken away from him, and this knowledge is obtained before the taking is complete, the offense of robbery is committed,’ Bryant v. State , 213 Ga.App. 301, 302, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994).” Evidence was sufficient to establish robbery where victim, hearing a noise, turned to see defendant “about 8-10 feet away” in grocery store, carrying off her purse which she had placed in her shopping cart. See also Hughes v. State , 266 Ga.App. 652, 598 S.E.2d 43 (March 24, 2004) (identical facts). Accord, Kendrick v. State , 279 Ga.App. 263, 630 S.E.2d 863 (May 9, 2006); Bettis v. State , 285 Ga.App. 643, 647 S.E.2d 340 (June 4, 2007); Brown v. State , 309 Ga.App. 511, 710 S.E.2d 674 (May 6, 2011) (facts similar to Moore ; “[c]ontrary to Brown's contention, the victim of a robbery by sudden snatching need not become aware of the taking prior to the taking. It is sufficient if the evidence shows, as it does here, that the victim became aware of the taking as the crime was being committed.”). Goings v. State, 265 Ga.App. 296, 593 S.E.2d 751 (January 26, 2004). “‘Although robbery by intimidation is a lesser included offense of armed robbery, it is not error in an armed robbery case to fail to charge on robbery by intimidation where there is evidence of robbery by use of an offensive weapon, but no evidence of robbery by intimidation,’” quoting Hill v. State, 228 Ga.App. 362, 363(1), 492 S.E.2d 5 (1997). Darby v. State, 245 Ga.App. 657, 538 S.E.2d 538 (August 24, 2000). Robbery by force conviction affirmed; jury charge on recent unexplained possession was appropriate even though only property taken was cash. Rejects defendant’s argument that “that in order for a charge on recent unexplained possession of stolen property to be warranted, at least one item of property found in the defendant's possession must be clearly identifiable as property stolen during the indicted crime.” “Here, there was evidence from which a jury could carry on a legitimate process of reasoning about whether the $265 found in Darby's possession was the same money taken from Rogers's purse. Rogers identified him several times as the man who took her purse. And less than an hour after the robbery he was found hiding in a closet near the robbery scene in possession of money in the same amount and denominations as that taken from the purse.” Westmoreland v. State , 245 Ga.App. 482, 538 S.E.2d 119 (August 4, 2000). Conviction for robbery by sudden snatching affirmed; defense of “claim of right” applies to claims of theft, but not robbery. “‘[F]orce is implicit in sudden snatching, both as a fact and as a legal proposition, the force being that effort necessary for the robber to transfer the property taken from the owner to his possession. In order to prove a case of robbery by suddenly taking or carrying away the property of another without his consent, it is only necessary to show that the person robbed was conscious that something was being taken away from him, and that for any reason he was unable to prevent it; and consequently the only difference now between robbery of this class and larceny from the person is that in the latter case the property is abstracted without the knowledge of its possessor; but if the possessor becomes conscious, even in the taking, that his property is being taken away from him, and this knowledge is obtained before the taking is complete, the offense of robbery is committed.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lawson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 645-646, 481 S.E.2d 856 (1997). See Bryant v. State, 213 Ga.App. 301, 302, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994). … Under the facts of this case, the victim established he was aware that his cellular telephone was being taken from his lap and that he was unable to prevent it. There was no evidence of a theft other than by sudden snatching. Therefore, ‘the offense, if any, was robbery by sudden snatching.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Bryant v. State, supra at 303, 444 S.E.2d 391. Since there was no evidence of the lesser included offense of theft by taking, Westmoreland was not entitled to a charge on the affirmative defense of ‘claim of right.’ To allow a ‘claim of right’ defense to an offense, such as robbery by sudden snatching, within which the use of force is implicit would sanction the use of force to claim the property.” Accord, Kendrick v. State , 279 Ga.App. 263, 630 S.E.2d 863 (May 9, 2006); Brown v. State , 309 Ga.App. 511, 710 S.E.2d 674 (May 6, 2011).