Heard v. State

Benham, Judge.

In contesting his conviction of first degree forgery, appellant argues that his motions for directed verdict of acquittal and for new trial should have been granted because the State failed to prove he had the requisite intent to defraud and the victim of the forgery suffered no pecuniary loss. We disagree and affirm appellant’s conviction.

1. Appellant, a builder/developer, received a form letter from the City of Sugar Hill authorizing Gwinnett County to issue a building permit for a location where “[a] 11 city utilities with the exception of sanitary sewer are available . . .…