¶1concurring specially.
¶2I believe Division 1 of the majority opinion can be stated more concisely as follows:
¶31. Separate prosecutions for crimes arising from the same criminal transaction are barred generally. They are not barred where the court lacks jurisdiction or the court orders separate trials in the interest of justice. Code Ann. § 26-506 (b) (c).
¶42. Separate punishment (conviction) of a crime is barred where it is included as a matter of law in another crime for which the defendant has been convicted. Crimes are included as a matter of law by statute or judicial decisions.
¶53. Separate punishment (conviction) of a crime is barred when it was included as a matter of fact in proving another crime for which the defendant has been convicted.
¶6(a) When the elements of the separate crimes have been proved by additional and distinct facts, the crimes are not included as a matter of fact and the defendant may be convicted of both crimes. In such case, the proof may overlap in part, but the proof of either crime does not encompass the other. Potts v. State, 241 Ga. 67 (243 SE2d *605510) (1978).
¶7(b) When all, or less than all, the facts which were necessary to prove one crime are the only facts which proved the other crime the latter crime is included as a matter of fact and the conviction of the latter crime is barred. In such case, the proof of the included crime is encompassed by the proof of the other crime. State v. Estevez, 232 Ga. 316 (206 SE2d 475) (1974).
¶84. Allen, Burke, Zilinmon, Williams and Pryor are not inconsistent withPoiis. The hypothetical case in Pryor should be disregarded.