Case Name: FLUELLEN v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1976-10-05
Citations: 237 Ga. 695
Docket Number: 31352
Parties: FLUELLEN v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 237
Pages: 695–695

Head Matter:
31352.
FLUELLEN v. THE STATE.
Submitted July 16, 1976
Decided October 5, 1976.
Harmon & Wells, Carl A. Veline, Jr., for appellant.
Stephen Pace, Jr., District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Isaac Byrd, Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Gunter, Justice.
The appellant was convicted for having committed armed robbery, and he has come here for review.
His first four enumerated errors contend that the trial court erred in overruling a pre-trial suppression motion and then admitting into evidence at the trial, over proper objection, identification testimony that identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
The transcript shows that the appellant was given the Miranda warnings, that he waived his right to counsel at a line-up, that he signed the waiver form, and that an incriminating statement, which appellant denied that he made, was freely and voluntarily made by him if in fact he made the statement.
Under the circumstances shown by this record the trial judge did not commit error in overruling the motion to suppress and allowing the identification testimony into evidence for consideration by the jury. These four enumerated errors have no merit.
The fifth enumerated error contends that the state's Exhibit No. 12 was improperly admitted into evidence because it did not fully advise the defendant of his rights as set forth in Miranda.
Exhibit 12 was the form containing the requisite Miranda warnings and waiver of counsel. Appellant's contention that this form did not fully advise him of his rights has no merit, and its admission into evidence was not erroneous.
The sixth enumerated error has no merit, because there was ample evidence submitted to the jury to sustain the conviction.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.