1 Branch was kill ed on March 12, 2011. Ramirez was indict ed on June 15, 2011 and

charged with mali ce murder by strangulati on, mali ce murder by stabbi ng, fel ony murder by strangulati on, and felony murder by

stabbi ng. His t

rial commenced on July 9, 2012, and the jury retur

ned its verdict

four days later, finding R amirez gu ilty of all coun ts. The trial court sentence d Ramirez to a t erm of impri sonment for l ife for mali ce murder by strangulati on, and t he ver dicts as to the o ther mu rde r ch arg es w ere v aca ted b y ope ratio n of law

. Malc ol m v . State , 263 Ga. 369, 371-372 ( 4) (434 SE2d 479) (1993) . Ramirez file d a motion for new trial on August 1, 2012, and foll owing a hearing, the trial court den ied that motion on Feb ruary 5, 2013. Ramirez fi led a not ice of appealon February 13, 2013, and the case was docketed in this Court for the September 2013 term and submitted for decision on the briefs. FINAL C OPY 294 Ga. 440 S13A132 3. RAMIREZ v. THE STATE.

B LACK WE LL , Justice. Following

trial by a Gwinnett Coun ty jury, Kenneth Victo r Ramirez was convicted of the murder of Thomas Branch. Ramirez appeals, contending only that the eviden ce is in sufficient to sustain his conviction . We conclude, howeve r, that the evidence is legally suff icient , and so, we aff

irm the judgment of convic tion. 1 Viewedin the li ght

most favorable to the verdict, the evi dence shows th at Ramirez, Christoph er Emery, and Wilfredo Riv era li ved in a n apart ment complex in Lawrencevil le. B ranch l ived in th e sam e com plex. On the evening of March 12, 20 1 1, Ram

irez, Eme ry, a

nd Rivera acc ompani ed Bra nch to a2 Branch – who was 5 8 years of age – bought t he beer. Ramirez and Emery were 18 year s of age, and Rivera was only 14 year s of age.

2 nearby conveni ence st ore to bu y bee r. 2 Ramirez

and Rivera then went with Branch to the a

partm ent in w hich Bra

nch live d, where they

were j oined by Ronald Sheppard. As Br anch spoke with h is guests, Riv era — at thedirect

ion of Ramirez — struck Branch with a flashlight. Bo th Ri vera a nd Ramirez then hitBranch about the

head w ith a

frying pa n. After beating Branc h with the pan, Ramirez began to strangle Branch with a belt. Aro und that time, Emery appeared at the apartment, w

here he saw Ra mire z stra ngling Bra

nch. Co mplaining that

the effort to st rangle Branch was “t aking so lo ng,” Ramirez asked f or a knife , and Eme ryleft the apartment, obt ained a knife, and r eturned. Ramirez used the knife to stab Branch in th e neck. A neighbor c alled f or law enforcement

after hearin g that Ramirez was killing “ the old man upst airs,” and when officers arriv ed, they found Branch dead in his apartm ent. Investiga tors int erview ed Ramirez, and at first, he denied that he even knew Branc h. He t

hen, however, began to cry and acknowled ged that he knew Branch and wa s prese nt when B ranch w as kille d, alth ough he de nied tha t he participated in the killin g. Ramirez, E mery, a nd Rivera all were

charged with3 Rivera pl ed guilt y t o aggravat ed batt ery , and Emery pled guil ty

to cons pi ra cy to com mit ag grav ated a ssault. 4 Ramirez als o clai ms the evide nce is insuffi cient to show that

he was the one who stabbedBranch becau se Em ery test ifie d that he left

the apartment i mmediatel y aft er providi ng the knif

e, Sheppard t esti fied that he went i nto the ba throom of the apartment when the violence ag ainst Branc h escalated, and Rivera test ifie d that he looked away when Branch was stabbed. But Emery, Rivera, and Sheppard al l tes tifi ed that Ramirez reques ted a kni fe, Rivera and Sheppard both t esti fied that the y sa w Ramirez pick up t he knife th at Eme ry provided, and Rivera and Sheppar d both tes tifi ed that they heard the sound of Branch bei ng stabbed. In an y event, the medicalexaminer t esti fied that e ither the st abbing or s trangul ation wo uld have been suffic ient to kil l Branch, and Ramirez was sent enced on the count of malice murder ari sing fr om his strangulat ion of Branch, not the s tabbing. 3 mur der a nd other c rime s in conne ction with the kil ling — She ppard wa s not charg ed —and Rivera and Emery later pled guilty to le sser ch arges. 3 Both Rivera and Em ery te stified

at thetrial of

R amirez. Sheppard also t estified at trial. In additio n, a jailhouse in formant testified that Ramirez had admitted that he and “a juvenile” had be at an “old man” w ith a pan, strangled him with a belt, and stabbe d him in the nec k in order to “get dow n with . . . [t]he

Rollin 60 Crips” gang. Ramirez claims that the evidence is insuffic ient to sustain his convi ction becau se the only eviden ce implicating him in th e k illing, he contend s, is the uncorrob orated testimony of his acco mplic es. 4 See former OC GA § 24-4-8 (in5 This case was t ried under

the old Evi dence Code, see Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101, and for that r eason , we cit e former OCGA § 24-4-8. We note, however, that t he provis ions of forme r OC GA § 24-4-8 we re carrie d fo rwa rd into the new Evidence Code and now can be found at OCGA § 24-14-8. 4 “felony cases where the onlywitnes s is an accom plice, the testim

ony of a single witness is not suff

icient” and must be su pported b y the testimony of ano ther witness or by

“corrobora

ting circumst ances ”). 5 But even if we were to as sume that Sheppard

was an acco mplic e, and

even if we furt her we re to assum e that the only eviden ce o f the guilt of Ram irez w ere the

testimony of ac compl ices — which would requ ire us, of cour se, to ignorethe te stimony of the nei ghbor who heard that Ra mire z was k

illing “th e old ma

n[,]” the te stimony

of the ja ilhouse informa ntto whom

Ram irez provided inf

ormat ion about the

detail s of the murder including his motive for com mitting it, a

nd the te stimony

of the police officer who rec eived R

amir ez’s contra dictory

and inculpatory statem ent — it is well establ ished tha

t “[w]he re, a s here, morethan on e accomplice testifies at trial, the te stimony

of one ac compl ice m ay becorrobora ted by t he test imony of the others.” Hanifa v. State , 269 Ga . 797, 808- 809 (7) (5 0 5 SE2d 731) (1 998) (cita tion omitte d). I n all, the evidence was more th an sufficient t o authorize a rational jury to find beyond a reasonab le doubt th at Ramirez was guilty of the5

crime of which he was con victed. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560 ) (1979). A ccordin gly, w e affirm the judgment of convic tion. Judgme nt affir

med. All the

Justice s concur .

Decid ed Janua

ry 27, 201 4. Murder. Gwinne tt Superi or Court. Before Judge T. Davis. Sharon L. Hopkins , for appellant. Daniel J. Porte r, Distric t Attorney, Da vid K. Keeton, Assista

nt District Attorne y, Sa

mu el S. Olens, Attorn ey General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney Gener al, Paula K. S mith, Senior Ass istant Attor ney General , for appellee.