1 Neither party has follow ed the rules of this Cou rt wi th regard t o the proper form for cit ation to t

he appellat e record. We remind the bar thatthe Rule s of the Court of Appeals require t

hat record and transcript citations must be to the vo lume or part of the record or tr anscript and the page numbers thatappear on the appe llate r ecords or tr anscr ipt a s sent

from the court

below. Se e Rule 25. THI RD DI VI SI ON BA RN ES , P. J ., BOGG S and BRAN CH, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideratio n m ust be physically

received

in our clerk’s office with in ten days of the date

of decisi on to be deeme d timely filed. http://ww w.gaappeals.us/rules/ September 23, 2014



# In the Court of Appeals of Geo rgia A14A1388 . INGRAM v. THE STATE. B RANCH , Judge. M arqu is Ingram app eals his conviction of armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a cri me, as well as t he denial of hi s motion for new trial. On appeal, he c ontends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppres s his cu s todial s tatement, that his tria l counsel was inef fecti ve, and that

the evidence

was in suf

fi ci ent to sup port t

he v er di ct . F orth e r ea son s that fo ll ow, we a ff

ir m. 1 Const r ued in favor of the verdi ct, the evi dence shows on t he morning of Novem ber 18 , 20 09 , I n gram, co-defendant Alexander Will iams, and another man2

enteredJason Po pe’s St one Mount ai n ap artme ntund er fa ls e pr et ens es . Wi ll iams put
a pisto l to Pope’s hea d, and he and the ot her two men hit Pope with pist ols, tie d Pope up, and statedth at they wanted “money and . . . weed, ” which Pope deni ed having. Ingram and his c o-defe ndants t he n took ma ny ite ms that b elon ged to P ope and his roommate, inclu ding Po pe’s televis ion, ja cket, c ell ph one , and la pto p c omp ut er . At trial, Pope identifi ed Ingram as one of the men and testi fied that he had seen Ingram in th e ne igh bo rho od on a pr ior o cca sio n. At approxi matel y 1:40 p. m. on the day of the r obbery, police st opped a green Honda for spe eding on I nter stat e 20 in Dekalb County; the car was occupie d by four men, inclu ding Ing ram . At so me poin t dur ing th e stop , the o fficer le arne d tha t th e police were look ing f

or a g reen Ho nda Ac cord in connection with a suspect ed crime. Officers detec ted th e od or o f ma rijuan a, the m en w ere re mo ved from the v ehicle and patteddow n for officer safety, and the officers summ oned a dru g-sniffi ng K-9. The officers found one handgun on I ngram’s pe rson, and the y recovered thre e other handguns dur ing th e stop . The K-9 alerted on th e H ond a du ring a free -air sniff, which ledto a searchof the car, and three of the men, including Ingram, were pl aced under

arre st at the scene and then trans por ted to polic e hea dqu arters. I ngr am wa s fou nd in possess ion of P ope ’s cell phone at t he ti me of his arres t. During the sear ch of the car,2 Althoug h the form states t hat an offi cer r ead the Miranda ri ghts at 1:52, Office r Ze ric e xp lain ed t hat the tim e on the for m w as a mi stak e. 3 the officer s recoveredPope’s te le vi si on and l aptop c ompu te r, as wel l a s ot her it ems tha t be lon ged to P op e’s r oo mm ate. Atpolice headqua rters, Ingram was pl aced i n the i nterview room at about3:35 p. m. Offic er Zer ic of

the vi olent

crime task force (gun unit) rea d Ingram hi s Miranda righ ts at abo ut3: 52 p .m. 2 Shortly there after , Ingram gave a stat ement i n whi ch he explainedhow he had ob tai ned the gun an d admitt ed that he knew the driver

of the Honda. Th e inter rog ation by Z eric last ed approxi matel y 20 minutes . Shortly af ter he leftthe i nterview room, Ze ric lear ned that major- fel ony detec tive s suspected that Ingram ma y ha ve b een in vol ved in the Po pe armed ro bbery. Tho se detectives, including De tecti ve S cot t Bl ack , too k o ver Ing ram ’s ca se, a nd B la ck b egan to intervi ew the suspects , including Ingram. Zeric t old Black that I ngram had al ready been read the Miranda wa rnin g an d h ad c on sen ted to g ivin g a s tatem ent . Black’s first

contact with Ingram occu rred someti me between 4: 30 and 5:30 p.m ., and he in tervie wed Ingram i n the same inte rvie w room that Zeric had us ed. Black did not r erea d Ingram hi s Miranda rights , al though he asked I ngram at one point if he unders tood his Miranda ri ghts as explained by Zeri c. I ngr am answered t hat he4

did. At app rox im ately 6:3 0 p .m., I ng ram gav e a s tatem ent . B etween 7: 00 and 7:59 p.m ., Black wrote out

Ingram’s statemen t in which Ingram admitted entering Po pe’s apar tme nt, poi nti ng a gun at Pope ’s hea d, tying Pope up, hitting Pope, and taking item s fro m P op e’s a par tm ent . 1. Prio r to trial, Ingram moved to suppr ess hi s statement on the gr ound that

he sho uld have been read his M iranda rights a second time at the beg inning of B lack’s inte rrogation. Th e trial co urt d enied the m otion , reaso ning that Z eric p rop erly informed Ingram of hi s Miranda rights , that there i s no d uty to re peat t he Miranda warnings wh en se para te inte rvie ws are part of a continuing inter rogation, and that Bla ck’ s in terv iew of I ng ram wa s pa rt of a co ntin uin g in terro gat ion
. “The trialcourt determines the adm issibilit y of a defend ant’s state ment under the preponderance of the ev idence standard consi deri ng the t otal ity of the circ um stan ces .” Vergara v. Sta te , 283 Ga. 175, 176 (657 SE2d 863) (2008) (ci tat ion omi tted). Wh en the appe llate cour ts r eview the tr ialcourt ’s dec isi on on a motion t o suppress, “the t

ria l court’s findings on disp uted facts w ill be u phe ld un less cle arly

errone ou s, and its appli cati on of the law to undi sputed f acts is subj ect to de novo revi ew .” Ba rrett v. S tate , 289 Ga. 197, 200 (1) (709 SE2d 816) (2011) (ci tatio n omitted).5

Here, the tria l cou rt fou nd th at the B lack in tervie w w as pa rt of a c ontin uing inte rrogation; that

conclus ion is sup por ted b y the facts and the law. Although Ingram argues that

the br eak between the Zeric i nterview and the beginning of th e Bla ck interv ie w amounted t o five hours, the evi dence pr esent ed at t he Jacks on-Denno heari ng and at tri al shows that the break could have been less than 30 m inutes. Zeric’s intervi ew laste d ap p roximat ely 20 minut es st art ing 8 or more minutes before 4:00 p.m ., and Black testified that he first made conta ct wit

h Ingram bet

ween 4:30 and 5: 30 p. m. Thu s, th e tri alco urt w as not cl early e rr one ous wh en it co nc lu de d tha t t

he tw o inte rv ie ws were part of aconti nuing inte rro gat ion . Se e, e.g ., Sos niak v. Sta te , 287 Ga. 279, 285 ( 1) ( B) (695 SE 2d 604 ) (2010) (trial court’s finding that interviews were p art of a continuing inte rrogation was suppor ted by the record wh en two interview s were conducted in one day). Moreover, the Georgi a Supreme Court has hel d that

the State has no d uty to repe at M irand a w arnin gs in sepa rate in tervie ws that are part of a conti nuing inte rro gat ion
. Williams v. Sta te , 244 Ga. 485, 488 (4) (b) (260 SE2d 879) (1979) (no duty to repea t warnings given the day before w here they w ere part of a conti nuing interro gatio n); Ca rsw ell v. Sta te , 279 Ga. 342, 344 (2) (b) ( 613 SE2d 636) (2005) (additi onal Miranda warnings not requiredfor a series of fiv e inter view s held

ov er th e co urs e of

12 to 1 4 h ou rs).6

Final ly, there is n o mer it to the argument that additional M iranda warning s were requiredbeca use B lack r aised a new topic – the pos sibility that Ingram was involved in the armed robbery – without giving a n ew M iran da warning. See Christenson v. State , 261 G a. 80, 86 (3) (402 S E2d 4 1) (1991) (“a su spect’s awareness o f al l the pos sible subjec ts of

qu esti oni ng in adv ance of in terrog ation is no t relev ant to deter mining wh ether the su spec t volu ntarily , kno win gly, a nd in telligen tly w aived his Fif th A me nd me nt p rivi leg e”) ( citat ion and pu nct uat ion om itted ). For all t hese reasons, the tri al court di d not clearly err when it denie d Ingram’s motion to su ppress. 2. Ing ram con te nds his tri al couns el was ineffe cti ve becaus e counselfai led pr ior to trial to revie w th oro ugh ly In gram ’s vid eo-ta ped statem ent, which led to the co urt denying the motion to suppress t he state ment. Acco rdi ng to Ing ram ’s brie f and his counsel’s testimony at t he hear ing o n the mo tion f or n ew trial, Ing ram spec ifically argues as follo ws : Blac k testif ied at th e hea ring on th e m otion to su ppr ess th at h e asked In gr am at the beginning of t he intervi ew whether he remembered t he Miranda warning given by Zeric; at tria l, the audi o tape of the i nterrogat ion shows that Black fail ed to ask that

ques tionuntil m uch later in the in tervie w; h ad co uns el tho rou ghly reviewed the tape, of which he was aware, prior to trial , he would have known w hen7

Black asked this ques tion; accor dingly, counselwas not prepared at trial to crossexa mi ne B lack wi th re gar d to his testi mo ny . Th is arg ument is made moot by our hol ding in Di visi on 1. Ingram could not have been harm ed by this alleged failure on the part of counselbecause even if Bla ck had never a sked Ingr am whether he remembered t he Miranda warni ng given by Zeric, Ingram’s stat ement would have been admis sibl e as a part of a continuing inte rrogation thatbeg an w ith a p rop er M irand a w arnin g. Th us, it is legally irrelev ant ex actly when Bla ck a ske d In gra m w het her he r em em ber ed t he e arlie r M iran da w arn ing
. 3. As shown by the above st atem ent o f facts, th e evid ence pres ented at trial, including Ingram’s state ment, was suffic ient t o support the verdic t find ing h im g uilty

o f ar med robbery and possession of a fir earm during the commission of a cri me. OCG A §§ 16-8-41 (a); 16-11-106. See Jackson v. Virg inia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SC t 2781, 61 L E2d 5 60) (1979 ). Judgment af

fir med. Barnes, P. J., and Boggs, J. , conc ur .