The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault, robbery, and uttering a death threat, and also appealed sentence.
The court rejected the challenge to the jury charge on identification evidence, holding the instruction was sufficient and finding no merit in that ground.
On sentence, the appellant argued parity required a reduction after a co-offender's sentence had been lowered on appeal.
The court held parity did not mandate equal sentences where the offenders' circumstances differed, including remorse, criminal record, and post-sentence evidence, and upheld the sentence as fit and free of error in principle.
