Wright v

State, 232 Ga. App. 646, 502 S.E.2d 756 (1998). There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions for stalking in vi- 1016 olation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90 and aggravated stalking under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91(a) because defendant contacted the defendant’s love interest in violation of a temporary restraining order, with the requisite intent, by sending two letters that the victim received after the protection order was granted, and the state established that defendant’s conduct was for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the defendant’s love interest; a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that such acts were intended to harass and intimidate and reasonably placed the victim in fear for the victim’s safety. Maskivish v. State, 276 Ga. App. 701, 624 S.E.2d 160 (2005). Venue properly established. — Trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict after a jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated stalking in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91(a) because the evidence authorized the jury to find that venue in Lowndes County was properly established; the victim and the victim’s family resided in Lowndes County, and the victim’s mother testified that the defendant had sent the letter to their residence and that the letter was retrieved from the mailbox at their residence. Bowen v. State, 304 Ga. App. 819, 697 S.E.2d 898 (2010). No requirement to prove actual notice of no contact order. — State’s proof that a no contact order had been issued against the defendant regarding the victim was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of aggravated stalking under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91, as proof of actual notice of the no contact order was not required. Revere v. State, 277 Ga. App. 393, 626 S.E.2d 585 (2006). Aggravating stalking based on single violation of protective order. — Under the precedents existing at the time of a petitioner’s first habeas petition, a claim that the petitioner could not be convicted of aggravated stalking based solely on a single violation of a protective order could have been raised based on the language of O.C.G.A. §§ 16-5-90(a)(1) and 16-5-91(a); therefore, the petitioner’s second petition was barred by O.C.G.A. § 9-14-51. State v.