concurring specially.
For the reasons given in my special concurrence in Collier v. State, 288 Ga. 756, 759 (707 SE2d 102) (2011), I believe that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) mandates that appellate courts apply plain error review to enumerated errors regarding jury charges that were not objected to at trial as required by § 17-8-58 (a). Thus, with regard to Division 5 of the majority opinion, I do not agree that “ ‘appellate review of this [jury charge] issue is unavailable’ ” or that the Court should merely “assum[e]” that plain error review is proper. See Maj. Op. at 547. Nor do I agree that the Court should leave the conflict in our case law on the meaning of § 17-8-58 (b) unresolved, as we have at least six times now since Collier. Accordingly, I do not join those portions of Division 5, although I join the remainder of the opinion and, because there was no plain error in the disputed jury charge, the judgment.