evidence.”); Ward, 304 Ga. App. at 522 (1) (a) (same). 19 Harp, 302 Ga. App. at 18 (punctuation omitted); see Green v. State, 265 Ga. App. 126, 128-29 (2) (592 SE2d 901) (2004) (“If two victims are robbed, the defendant maybe charged with the robbery of each victim.”). 20 Ham, 303 Ga. App. at 237 (1) (b) (punctuation omitted); accord Veasey v. State, 322 Ga. App. 591, 594 (1) (b) (745 SE2d 802) (2013); Green v. State, 292 Ga. 451, 452 (738 SE2d 582) (2013) (“The purpose of an indictment is to inform the accused of the charges against him and to protect the accused against another prosecution for the same offense.”). 21 Ham, 303 Ga. App. at 237 (1) (b) (punctuation omitted); accord Veasey, 322 Ga. App. at 594 (1) (b); see Haley v. State, 289 Ga. 515, 529 (3) (a) (712 SE2d 838) (2011) (<HOLDING>). 22 See Nyane v. State, 306 Ga. App. 591, 592
holding that reading the indictment as a whole we have no doubt that the defendant was fully aware of the charges against him holding that although the indictment did not track the exact language of the statute the indictment when read as a whole sufficiently stated facts which support every element of the crime charged and apprised defendant of the specific charge against him holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial holding that a defendant cannot claim that the amendment surprised him when the motion to amend was filed well in advance of trial