Joe Nathan Hawkins appeals his convictions for felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. 1
1. In two enumerations of error, Hawkins contends that the evidence was insufficient to authorize his convictions and that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. Our review of the record reveals that the State adduced evidence which would authorize the jury to find that Hawkins accosted a man leaving a bar, holding a pistol to the man's head and demanding money and jewelry; that Hawkins took a ring and a watch from the robbery victim; that in the course of the robbery, Hawkins struck the robbery victim in the head with the pistol, causing the weapon to fire; and that the bullet from that discharge went through a window of the bar and struck a patron in the head, killing him. That evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Hawkins guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Foster v. State, 264 Ga. 369 (444 SE2d 296) (1994)
. Because the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no error in denying Hawkins's motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Cowards v. State, 266 Ga. 191 (1) (465 SE2d 677) (1996)
2. Hawkins was convicted and sentenced for both felony murder and armed robbery. Since Hawkins's armed robbery conviction was the underlying felony for his conviction of felony murder, it merged into the felony murder conviction. The conviction and sentence for armed robbery must, therefore, be vacated. Fields v. State, 266 Ga.
3. The final issue to be addressed on appeal 2
is Hawkins's complaint that the trial court refused to instruct the jury on battery and simple battery as offenses included in the aggravated assault charge of the indictment. We do not reach the merits of that complaint, however, because the record shows that no written request to charge on included offenses was presented to the trial court as is required by OCGA 5-5-24
After the evidence was closed and the trial court had heard argument on and denied Hawkins's motion for directed verdict, the prosecuting attorney brought to the court's attention that the defense had just served the prosecution with three requests to charge. The trial court noted that he did not have the charges, and nothing in the record shows that the trial court was ever presented with the requests to charge in writing. "Absent a written request for a charge on a lesser included offense, made at or before the close of the evidence, the failure to so charge is not error. State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1 (222 SE2d 354) (1976)
." Howe v. State, 250 Ga. 811 (301 SE2d 280) (1983)
. We find no error in the trial court's failure to give the charges on included offenses.
Brimberry, Kaplan & Brimberry, John P. Cannon, for appellant.