Rogers v. State

RUFFIN, Presiding Judge.

A jury found William Anthony Rogers guilty of two counts of theft by taking. On appeal, Rogers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He also contends that the trial court erred in admitting similar transaction evidence and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For reasons that follow, we find that Rogers’ enumerations of error lack merit, and we affirm.

1. On appeal from his criminal convictions, Rogers no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in a light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict. In so doing, we…