Marcelino Rebollar v. State

── Marcelino Rebollar v. State ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General FOURTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., WATKINS and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules April 14, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0517. REBOLLAR v. THE STATE MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge. After a jury trial, Marcelino Rebollar was convicted on two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation in connection with acts against N. S. On appeal, Rebollar challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting one of the aggravated child molestation convictions, but the trial evidence authorized the jury to find him guilty of that offense. Rebollar argues that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but he has not demonstrated that his trial counsel performed deficiently. Finally, Rebollar challenges the constitutionality of his sentence, but he did not preserve the challenge for appellate review. So we affirm. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence  Rebollar argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated child molestation. The jury found Rebollar guilty of two counts of that offense, which is committed when a “person commits an offense of child molestation which . . . involves an act of sodomy.” OCGA § 16-6-4(c). “A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another[,]” OCGA § 16-6-2(a)(1), and in the two aggravated child molestation counts on which Rebollar was convicted the state alleged both types of sodomy. Rebollar addresses only the evidence pertaining to one of those counts, which alleged that he committed aggravated child molestation by committing an act of child molestation “involving [his] penis . . . and the mouth of [N. S.]” He makes no argument relevant to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his other aggravated child molestation conviction, on a count alleging that he committed the offense by committing an act of child molestation involving his penis and N. S.’s anus. To the extent he seeks to also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on that other count, he has abandoned that claim. See Court of Appeals Rule 25(d)(1) (“Any enumeration 2 of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”). Turning to the evidence supporting Rebollar’s conviction, we note that on appeal, Rebollar is no longer presumed innocent and all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Fossier v. State, 362 Ga. App. 184, 185(1) (867 SE2d 545) (2021) (citations and punctuation omitted). So viewed, the evidence showed that Rebollar is N. S.’s stepfather. Beginning when N. S. was ten years old and continuing over several years, Rebollar repeatedly sexually abused her. At trial, N. S. described multiple incidents in which Rebollar touched her breast and vagina with his hand beneath her clothing and rubbed his penis on her anus. The jury also heard evidence, described below, that Rebollar had put his penis in N. S.’s mouth. 3  In support of his argument that the evidence was insufficient, Rebollar points to trial testimony by N. S. that Rebollar a