Sign Up for Vincent AI
Frilando v. State
David T. Lock, Savannah, for Appellant.
Margaret Heap, Shalena Cook Jones Jones, Garrett Michael Emmons, Amanda Makoid McCool, for Appellee.
Phipps, Senior Appellate Judge.
Following a jury trial, John Anthony Frilando was convicted of two counts of aggravated stalking. Frilando filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Frilando contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. He also contends that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, excluding other evidence, and sentencing him as a recidivist under OCGA § 17-10-7 (c). We disagree and affirm.
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. Under that standard we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, including the state's witnesses, are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve.
Brooks v. State , 313 Ga. App. 789, 790, 723 S.E.2d 29 (2012) (citation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence shows that Frilando and R. L. were married in 1992. Several years later, Frilando was sentenced to a prison term of twenty years, and he went to prison in February 1997. R. L. maintained contact with Frilando the first few years he was in prison. In 1998 or 1999, R. L. ceased communications with Frilando, but he continued to attempt to contact her through letters and telephone calls. Frilando made multiple telephone calls to the nursing home where she worked and to the owner of the nursing home's house. Frilando also sent R. L. numerous letters; R. L. never responded.
In 2003, R. L. moved from South Carolina to Georgia. A few years later, Frilando filed for divorce from R. L. R. L. testified that she did not file for divorce earlier because she did not want Frilando to know where she lived. R. L. stated she felt scared because Frilando had previously sent someone to her mother's home to harass her mother. Frilando and R. L.’s divorce was finalized in 2007. In 2008, R. L. married K. R.
Following their divorce, Frilando continued to contact R. L. Frilando sent letters to R. L.’s home, her mother's home, her nephew's home, and her place of employment. R. L. saved some of the letters from Frilando, which were entered into evidence. One letter from 2008 reads, in part: Frilando alleged that R. L. had too many abortions. He continued,
In a letter to R. L. from January 2010, Frilando wrote:
Ask yourself why could you not hold or have a baby? ... [N]ow you want to run off with my things and bank on this time. I never wanted for us to be like this, but you look at how you played your hand. Right now you think that what you did is cool, and who ever this [K. R.] is he is just someone who happen to get at you at the time that you was fucked up and guess he told you the things you wanted to hear.... And just like [P's mom] died a messed up way, so will yours for being down with you, never would I have thought that a mother would pimp out her own girl. You two played a nice game but it will come to an end, and that will be when she dies because you will be lost, and I guess that will be enough for me. You will begin to see that for how you did me this will come back 10xs. I wish I could see your face, I can't believe that we was once so strong together or was that part of your game? Damn life is crazy. Hope you understand that you fucked up as well.
In a January 2013 letter, Frilando told R. L.:
All I want to bring to your attention is that I will be coming home soon and you and me can settle this between us or you can deal with my sister. You was left in charge of all my things [R. L.] I will be coming home to nothing. So do you want us to be in conflict? Or do you want us to move on in life? You know that no man you ever had has done for you like I have. So now if you wish to play me like some lame then you know that you will have to deal with a bunch of Bullshit as well.
The letter ended,
K. R. testified that he too received letters from Frilando and, apparently, from Frilando's friends. One letter K. R. received from Frilando, dated in 2007, read, in part:
So this tells me two things either [you're] related to [R. L.] or you was fucking around with her.! Now [K. R.] this is the deal, if [you're] a man, then you will understand why this is coming to you, this crazy bitch ran off with my things and sold my house.... See everything she has is because of me and like since I'm no hater life goes on and I don't want to stop no one from living! But no one will stop me from living either.
Around 2007, Frilando filed a lien on a house that K. R. had purchased in Georgia. In a January 2009 letter to R. L., Frilando told her about the lien: Frilando claimed that R. L. and K. R. bought the house with money from the sale of Frilando and R. L.’s house in South Carolina. R. L. testified that this was untrue, and K. R. purchased the house with his own money. In June 2014, the Superior Court of Chatham County entered an order voiding the lien filed by Frilando. The order included a no-contact provision: "Should the plaintiff, John A. Frilando, be released from Federal custody he is restrained and enjoined from contacting either Defendant [R. L. or K. R.] or coming within 500 [ ] yards of either of them."
After the no-contact order was issued, Frilando continued to send letters to R. L., both directly and through her attorney. In February 2016, Frilando sent a letter to the human resources department at R. L.’s place of employment. The letter purported to be from the Drug Enforcement Administration, indicated that R. L. was under investigation for drug conspiracy, and requested that R. L. be relieved of her position with her employer. R. L. testified that she felt threatened and "ashamed that I associated with somebody like that."
In February 2016, R. L. contacted Frilando's sister and asked her to tell Frilando to stop writing letters to R. L.’s employer. R. L. also talked to Frilando's sister about Frilando's upcoming release from prison. R. L. told Frilando's sister that she wanted Frilando to get part of the money she received from the sale of their South Carolina house. R. L. had received approximately $24,000 from the sale of the house, and she wanted to give Frilando $12,000. Shortly before Frilando was released from prison, Frilando's sister emailed R. L. to coordinate sending the money to him.
Prior to Frilando's scheduled release date in July 2016, R. L. had a surveillance system installed in her home because she was worried that Frilando would come to her house. After he was released, Frilando continued to contact R. L. by telephone and letter. R. L. testified that he called her at her office "a lot." In a letter to R. L. dated October 2016, Frilando wrote:
It was crazy that you thought you were being harassed.... I was just trying to let you know that I plan on getting me a place in Jan. I was giving plenty of time to hit me off in Jan with a little extra! Plus, you keep talking this talk about come and see you that you going to get down.... Me I am cool if I come to see you it is not what you want. I don't want no problems, unless they are called for.
On December 23, 2016, Frilando went to R. L. and K. R.’s home and rang the doorbell. R. L. looked out her window and saw Frilando. She had no idea why he was there and felt intimidated and scared. Although Frilando said he was there to tell R. L. to send the money from the sale of the house to his sister instead of to his cousin, R. L. testified that he had no reason to be there because she was in contact with his sister. K. R., worried for his wife's safety, grabbed his gun when he saw Frilando at their door. K. R. testified that there was no physical confrontation because they did not open the door. R. L. asked Frilando to leave, and he did. She then called the police.
Frilando was subsequently indicted for and convicted of two counts of aggravated stalking for violating the permanent injunction in the Chatham County Superior Court order by unlawfully contacting the two victims at their home without their consent for the purpose of harassing and intimidating them. Frilando filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied after a hearing. This appeal followed.
1. Frilando contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of aggravated stalking. We do not agree.
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting