Court Opinion

ID: 9398416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 13:05:08.166105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.264982
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
 Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
 opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
 prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
 official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                   Decided: May 31, 2023

                         S23A0276. PEREZ v. THE STATE.

        WARREN, Justice.

        Geovanni Perez was convicted of felony murder and a firearm

offense in connection with the shooting death of Rahmier Gardner. 1

        The crimes occurred on July 29, 2018. In December 2018, a Gwinnett
        1

County grand jury indicted Perez, Estefania Castro, and Khalid Bays,
individually and as parties to the crime, for two counts of felony murder (based
on armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery), armed robbery,
and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Perez and Bays were also indicted
for malice murder, felony murder (based on aggravated assault), aggravated
assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; Castro
was also indicted for tampering with evidence. Perez alone was tried from
September 13 to 20, 2021; the jury found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter
as a lesser offense of malice murder and of the remaining crimes. The trial
court sentenced him to serve 20 years for voluntary manslaughter, a
consecutive sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for felony
murder based on armed robbery, and five consecutive years for possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony. The remaining counts were merged
or vacated by operation of law. The trial court later amended the final
disposition form to reflect that the voluntary-manslaughter verdict was
vacated by operation of law. The record does not indicate how Castro’s and
Bays’s cases were resolved.
      Perez filed a timely motion for new trial, which he later amended
through new counsel. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion in
In this appeal, Perez contends that the evidence was constitutionally

insufficient to support his conviction for felony murder based on

armed robbery, that the trial court erred by denying his motions to

suppress certain evidence, and that he was improperly sentenced.

Seeing no error, we affirm.

     1.   Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the

evidence presented at Perez’s trial showed the following. Around

11:20 p.m. on July 29, 2018, investigators responded to a 911 call

reporting a shooting in the parking lot of a bowling alley on

Lawrenceville Highway in Lilburn. Law enforcement officials found

Gardner, who had been shot multiple times, dead in the parking lot,

with money sticking out of his shorts pockets. The medical examiner

who later performed Gardner’s autopsy determined that he had been

shot at least six times at “close range” and “contact range,” resulting

in wounds to his chest; head; chin; upper and middle back; and left

October 2022. Perez filed a timely notice of appeal directed to the Court of
Appeals, which properly transferred the appeal to this Court, where the case
was docketed to the term beginning in December 2022 and submitted for a
decision on the briefs.
                                     2
upper arm, elbow, and forearm. The examiner removed two .380

bullets and a .45-caliber bullet from Gardner’s body.

     A witness to the shooting heard what she thought were

“firecrackers” and then saw Gardner’s body on the ground as a silver

Nissan Sentra sped out of the parking lot. The lead investigator for

the case obtained a surveillance video recording from the parking

lot, which was played for the jury at trial. The investigator testified

that the recording, the quality of which he described as poor, showed

that at 11:03 p.m., Gardner, who appeared to be talking on a cell

phone, left the bowling alley and walked to the parking lot, where

he stood by his truck. At 11:07 p.m., a car pulled into the parking

lot and backed into a parking space; Gardner then walked to the car,

and a few minutes later, there was “some movement . . . at the car”

before the car sped away. The recording did not contain any other

information relevant to the investigation.

     After Gardner’s murder, the investigator searched Gardner’s

truck and found marijuana and cocaine. He also obtained Gardner’s

cell phone records, which showed that a phone number ending

                                  3
in -1131 contacted Gardner’s phone at 10:14, 11:02, and 11:07 p.m.

on the night of the shooting.

         The investigator then obtained search warrants for the cell

phone records, including cell site location information (“CSLI”),

connected to the -1131 phone number. The records showed that four

days after the shooting, the -1131 phone number was changed to a

phone number ending in -9983, and that both numbers were

associated with an address on South Elizabeth Place in Atlanta. The

CSLI showed that the cell phone associated with the -1131 number

was in Atlanta at 10:14 p.m., in Lilburn at 11:02 p.m., near the

bowling alley on Lawrenceville Highway at 11:07 p.m., and then in

Atlanta again at 12:02 a.m.2

         At some point, investigators identified Estefania Castro as a

suspect in connection with the shooting; she was arrested in October

2018. During a search of her silver Nissan Sentra, investigators

found blood inside the rear passenger-side door and under the

         2   A disc containing the cell phone records was admitted into evidence at
trial.
                                           4
passenger-side backseat; testing later showed that the blood was

Gardner’s. Investigators also found a .45-caliber bullet under the

backseat. A firearms examiner determined that this bullet and the

.45-caliber bullet that was removed from Gardner’s body had been

fired from the same .45-caliber pistol. He also concluded that the

two .380 bullets that were removed from Gardner’s body were fired

from the same .380 pistol.

     Investigators interviewed Castro, who implicated Perez in the

shooting. The lead investigator then obtained a warrant to search

the house on South Elizabeth Place. Investigators found Perez there

and arrested him; they also found his cell phone, which was

associated with the -1131 and -9983 phone numbers.       The lead

investigator then obtained a search warrant for the phone; a

download of the phone’s contents showed the following. At 7:08 p.m.

on the day before the shooting, Perez’s phone sent a text message

saying “U tryna hit a lick” to Castro’s phone. Around 1:30 p.m. on

the day of the shooting, a phone number associated with Khalid

Bays sent text messages to Perez’s phone saying, “I got everything

                                5
set up”; “U tryna do it today wen u get off”; and “He green asf.”3

Perez’s phone responded, “im just tryna c wat Steph say.” Perez’s

phone and Castro’s phone then exchanged messages about when

they planned to leave, and Perez’s phone sent a message to Bays’s

phone saying, “She said she ready.” Perez’s phone and Bays’s phone

exchanged messages agreeing to “go” sometime after 8:00 p.m. At

8:15 p.m., Bays’s phone sent a message saying, “I just want

everything to go as plan.” Perez’s phone replied, “u sure he gone

alone”; Bays’s phone responded, “Yea I’m sure and if he not who give

a fu** we got this.”

     On July 31, two days after the shooting, Castro’s phone sent

Perez’s phone a text that said, “You know that boy car Key was still

in my car, I had to destroy it cause I heard that those have trackin.”

Later that day, Castro’s phone sent texts to Perez’s phone saying:

“Don’t speak on nothing that happened”; “To no one”; “Don’t brag

about it or nothing”; “Ima change everything inside my car and fix

it”; “And report my tags stolen”; “Ima fix my car first”; and “Help me

     3   The lead investigator testified that “asf” meant “as fu**.”
                                         6
pay it.”   On August 1, Castro’s phone sent Perez’s phone texts

saying: “Change your number Geo”; “They can contact the company

and get your number”; “Asap.” In addition, Perez’s phone contained

a five-second-long video from July 30, 2018, which showed Perez and

Bays pointing handguns toward the phone’s camera. 4

      Castro testified at trial as follows. On July 28, Perez sent her

a text message asking if she wanted to “hit a lick.” The next day,

Perez and Bays called her and again asked her to “take them to rob

someone.” She picked them up in her silver Nissan Sentra, and they

told her to drive to the bowling alley on Lawrenceville Highway.

Bays used Perez’s phone to call someone “to buy some marijuana,

but, really, [Perez and Bays] were going to rob them.” When they

arrived at the bowling alley around 11:00 p.m., a man, whom Castro

identified at trial as Gardner, got in the passenger-side backseat of

the Sentra; Perez was in the passenger seat, and Bays was in the

      4 Perez’s cell phone, a disc containing all of the downloaded content from
the phone, printouts showing the text messages between Perez’s phone and
Castro’s and Bays’s phones, and the video were admitted into evidence. The
lead investigator read the text messages aloud, and the video was played for
the jury.
                                       7
driver-side backseat. Gardner had marijuana in his lap, and Perez

and Bays told him to weigh it. When Gardner asked for money,

Perez pulled out a gun. Gardner pulled out his own gun and “pistol-

whipp[ed]” Perez and Bays. 5 Perez then shot Gardner several times,

got out of the car, and pulled Gardner out. 6 Perez and Bays told

Castro to “drive off,” and she drove them to her apartment in

Atlanta. Bays “had grabbed the marijuana[,] [a]nd then when [they]

got to Atlanta, [they] split it.” They also cleaned the Sentra, because

there was “a lot of blood” in it. She later found in the Sentra a “key

fob” that belonged to Gardner, which she destroyed.                  She then

instructed Perez to change his phone number.

      Perez did not testify at trial. His defenses were that Castro

      5 During an interview with investigators, Castro initially said that
Gardner pulled out a gun first and “pistol-whipp[ed]” Perez, but she later
admitted during the interview that Perez pulled out his gun first. In addition,
Castro testified that she was charged with felony murder and armed robbery
and could potentially receive sentences to serve life in prison for those crimes,
that she had not made any plea deals in exchange for her testimony, but that
she “wanted . . . to make a deal.”

      6Castro testified that Bays also had a gun that night, but she was not
asked whether he fired it.

                                       8
was “the mastermind behind the[e] whole thing”; that he acted in

self-defense; and, in the alternative, that the killing amounted only

to voluntary manslaughter.

      2. Perez contends first that the evidence presented at his trial

was constitutionally insufficient to support his conviction for felony

murder based on armed robbery.7 We disagree.

      In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of

constitutional due process, we view all of the evidence presented at

trial in the light most favorable to the verdict and ask whether any

rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt of the crime of which he was convicted.                 See

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560)

(1979); Drennon v. State, 314 Ga. 854, 861 (880 SE2d 139) (2022).

We leave to the jury “‘the resolution of conflicts or inconsistencies in

the evidence, credibility of witnesses, and reasonable inferences to

      7 Perez also contends that the evidence did not support his “conviction”
for armed robbery. Perez was found guilty of armed robbery, but he was not
convicted of or sentenced for that crime, so this contention is moot. See Rich
v. State, 307 Ga. 757, 759 n.2 (838 SE2d 255) (2020).
                                      9
be derived from the facts.’”   Drennon, 314 Ga. at 861 (citation

omitted).

     To support Perez’s conviction for felony murder, the evidence

presented at trial had to show that he proximately caused Gardner’s

death, either directly or as a party to the crime, while in the

commission of an armed robbery. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (c). See also

OCGA § 16-2-20 (defining parties to a crime). “A person commits

the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft,

he . . . takes property of another from the person or the immediate

presence of another by use of an offensive weapon[.]” OCGA § 16-8-

41 (a). To convict a defendant of armed robbery, the State must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of the

weapon occurred “prior to or contemporaneously with the taking.”

Tyler v. State, 311 Ga. 727, 732 (859 SE2d 73) (2021) (citation and

punctuation omitted).

     The indictment in this case alleged that Perez, individually and

as a party, committed armed robbery by using a handgun to take

                                 10
marijuana from Gardner’s “immediate presence.”8 As Perez points

out, the State was thus required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that his use of the handgun occurred prior to or contemporaneously

with the taking of the marijuana. Contrary to Perez’s arguments,

however, the jury was authorized to conclude that the State made

such a showing here.

      Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence

presented at trial—which included the text messages sent from

Perez’s, Castro’s, and Bays’s phones and also Castro’s testimony—

      8 The indictment also alleged that Perez committed armed robbery by
taking Gardner’s cell phone. Perez argues that the State failed to present any
evidence that he and his co-defendants took the cell phone, but we need not
decide that issue, because as discussed below, the evidence was sufficient to
prove that he took the marijuana. See, e.g., Avila v. State, 322 Ga. App. 225,
226-227 (744 SE2d 405) (2013) (holding that evidence that the appellant took
a watch and bracelet from the victim was sufficient to support his conviction
for armed robbery, even though the indictment alleged that the appellant took
jewelry, cash, and a camera, and explaining that “[t]he State is not required to
prove theft of all the items the indictment alleged were taken from the victim”)
(emphasis in original); Booker v. State, 242 Ga. App. 80, 82 (528 SE2d 849)
(2000) (concluding that evidence that the appellant took money from the victim
was sufficient to support his armed-robbery conviction, even though the
indictment alleged that he took money and cocaine, and explaining that “[a]n
over-inclusive list of items alleged to have been taken in an indictment for
armed robbery is not fatal to the validity of the conviction”). Cf. Davis v. State,
281 Ga. 871, 874 (644 SE2d 113) (2007) (“Where a single victim is robbed of
multiple items in a single transaction, there is only one robbery.”).
                                        11
showed that Perez, Castro, and Bays planned to rob Gardner (on the

pretext of buying marijuana); when they arrived at the bowling

alley, Gardner got in Castro’s Sentra, put the marijuana in his lap,

and asked for money, and Perez then pulled out his gun and shot

Gardner multiple times, killing him; Bays “grabbed the marijuana”;

and Perez, Castro, and Bays fled to Atlanta, where they split the

marijuana among them. This evidence authorized the jury to infer

that Perez shared with Castro and Bays a common criminal intent

to rob Gardner. See McIntyre v. State, 312 Ga. 531, 534 (863 SE2d

166) (2021) (“‘[C]riminal intent may be inferred from presence,

companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the offense.’”)

(citation omitted). The jury also could have reasonably concluded

that Perez used his gun prior to or contemporaneously with Bays’s

taking of the marijuana, such that the State met its burden to prove

that Bays took the marijuana during or soon after the fatal

confrontation. The jury was therefore authorized to conclude that

the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Perez was a party

to the crime of armed robbery, which proximately caused Gardner’s

                                12
death. Accordingly, the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to

support Perez’s conviction, at least as a party to the crime, for felony

murder based on armed robbery. See, e.g., Tyler, 311 Ga. at 732

(holding that the evidence, which showed that the appellant shot the

victim before the taking of property, was constitutionally sufficient

to support his conviction for armed robbery and explaining that “[a]

defendant may be convicted of committing a robbery if he kills the

victim first and then takes property in his possession”); Waller v.

State, 311 Ga. 517, 522-523 (858 SE2d 683) (2021) (concluding that

the evidence—which showed that the appellant and his co-

defendants planned to rob the victim of a backpack containing cash

and that after the victim was shot, he was no longer in possession of

the backpack—was constitutionally sufficient to support the

appellant’s conviction for felony murder based on armed robbery,

and explaining that the jury was authorized to infer that the

appellant used force against the victim contemporaneously with the

taking of the backpack); Lumpkin v. State, 310 Ga. 139, 146 (849

SE2d 175) (2020) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to

                                  13
support the appellant’s armed-robbery conviction and explaining

that there was no evidence that the taking of a laptop occurred

before the assailants’ use of force against the victim).

     3. Perez also contends that the trial court erred by denying

three pretrial motions he filed seeking to suppress certain evidence.

We address each of the motions in turn.

     (a) Perez’s first motion sought to suppress evidence derived

from the execution of two search warrants on the grounds that the

warrants violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution because they lacked probable cause and sufficient

particularity. See U.S. CONST. amend. IV (stating, in pertinent part,

that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported

by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized”). The first warrant,

which was issued on August 3, 2018, five days after the shooting,

authorized investigators to obtain real-time geolocation information

and real-time CSLI so that they could “track” the cell phone

associated with the -1131 number until the investigation ended or

                                  14
for 45 days, whichever occurred sooner.                  The warrant also

authorized investigators to obtain phone records associated with the

-1131 number for 45 days, beginning on August 3.                   The second

search warrant, which was issued on August 20, 2018, authorized

investigators to obtain phone records for the -1131 phone number

from July 1 to 31, 2018, including, among other things, information

regarding the date, time, and phone numbers associated with

incoming and outgoing phone calls; incoming and outgoing text

messages, without content; subscriber information; and historical

CSLI. After a hearing, the trial court denied Perez’s motion.

      In this Court, Perez maintains his arguments that the search

warrants lacked probable cause and sufficient particularity. 9 We

      9  United States Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the
acquisition of Perez’s cell phone records, including historical CSLI, constituted
a Fourth Amendment search for which the lead investigator was required to
obtain a warrant. See Carpenter v. United States, ___ U.S. ___ (201 LE2d 507,
138 SCt 2206, 2220-2221 & n.3) (2018) (holding that the acquisition of seven
days of historical CSLI constitutes a Fourth Amendment search for which the
government generally must obtain a search warrant supported by probable
cause); Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 403 (134 SCt 2473, 189 LE2d 430)
(2014) (holding that in order to search the digital information on a suspect’s
cell phone incident to his arrest, investigators are generally required to obtain
a warrant). But neither that Court, nor this one, has addressed whether the

                                       15
address first Perez’s claim that the warrants lacked probable cause.

      In determining whether probable cause exists to issue a
      search warrant, the magistrate’s task “is simply to make
      a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the
      circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there
      is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
      will be found in a particular place.” “The test for probable
      cause is not a hypertechnical one to be employed by legal
      technicians, but is based on the factual and practical
      considerations of everyday life.” “On appellate review,
      our duty is to determine if the magistrate had a
      ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that probable cause
      existed to issue the search warrant.” The decision of a
      magistrate “to issue a search warrant based on a finding
      of probable cause is entitled to substantial deference by a
      reviewing court[,] and even doubtful cases should be
      resolved in favor of upholding a magistrate’s
      determination that a warrant is proper.” “The probable
      cause test requires only a fair probability—less than a
      certainty but more than a mere suspicion of possibility—
      which by no means is to be equated with proof by even so
      much as a preponderance of the evidence.”

collection of real-time geolocation information or real-time CSLI qualifies as a
Fourth Amendment search. See Carpenter, 138 SCt at 2220 (noting that the
Court expressed no view on real-time CSLI). And we need not decide that issue
today, because the lead investigator did obtain a warrant authorizing him to
track the cell phone (and to obtain certain records), and as discussed below,
the warrant was supported by probable cause and was sufficiently particular.
We will therefore assume, without deciding, that the portion of the warrant
permitting the tracking was required in the first place. See, e.g., United States
v. Gibson, 996 F3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2021) (assuming without deciding that
using real-time GPS location data to track a cell phone was a Fourth
Amendment search); United States v. Sheckles, 996 F3d 330, 338 (6th Cir.
2021) (assuming without deciding that tracking a cell phone through real-time
CSLI was a Fourth Amendment search).
                                       16
Copeland v. State, 314 Ga. 44, 49 (875 SE2d 636) (2022) (citations

omitted).

     In the affidavits supporting the two search warrants at issue

here, the lead investigator attested, in pertinent part, as follows.

After the shooting, investigators found marijuana and cocaine,

which were packaged for sale, in Gardner’s truck in the bowling

alley parking lot, and two people who were at the bowling alley that

night admitted that they had purchased drugs from Gardner.

Gardner’s cell phone records showed that he received a call from the

-1131 phone number at 10:14 p.m. He received another call from

that number at 11:02 p.m., and surveillance video showed that at

11:03 p.m., Gardner appeared to be on his cell phone as he left the

bowling alley and walked to his truck in the parking lot. Gardner

received another call from the -1131 number at 11:07 p.m. The

surveillance video showed that a “sedan” pulled into the parking lot

around that time and that Gardner got into the sedan. Several

minutes later, the video showed Gardner fall out of the car and to

the ground as the sedan sped away. The lead investigator stated

                                17
that, based on the events on the night of the shooting, there was

reason to believe that the person using the -1131 number or an

accomplice of that person called Gardner about a drug deal, luring

him to the sedan, and that the person then shot and killed Gardner,

or participated in the shooting as an accomplice in the crimes.

     The facts outlined in the affidavits authorized the judge who

issued the warrants 10 to infer that someone associated with the

sedan used the -1131 phone number to call Gardner to communicate

about purchasing drugs in the bowling alley parking lot, and that

during the drug deal, the caller or one of his accomplices shot and

killed Gardner. Given the totality of the circumstances set forth in

the affidavits, the judge had a substantial basis for concluding that

there was a fair probability that the real-time and historical location

of the cell phone associated with the -1131 number and the records

for that number would lead to relevant evidence with respect to the

identities and whereabouts of the shooter and any accomplices, thus

     10 We note that a Gwinnett County superior court judge issued the two
search warrants at issue here; magistrate judges issued the warrants
discussed in Divisions 3 (b) and (c) below.
                                   18
facilitating their apprehension, as well as evidence of their location

and communications with each other and Gardner around the time

of the crimes. Accordingly, the judge had a substantial basis for

concluding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrants.

See, e.g., Copeland, 314 Ga. at 49-51 (holding that probable cause

supported a warrant to obtain the appellant’s cell phone records,

because the affidavit set forth facts showing that another suspect,

who investigators believed was “on the run,” called the appellant

before and after the shootings and that her phone pinged near the

crime scene and then became stationary near the appellant’s

address; these facts authorized the magistrate to infer that the

appellant’s cell phone records would contain information about his

communications with the suspect near the time of the crimes);

United States v. Gibson, 996 F3d 451, 460-462 (7th Cir. 2021)

(holding that court orders that met the requirements for a search

warrant and authorized investigators to use real-time GPS location

data to track a cell phone used by the appellants were supported by

probable cause, because the affidavits set forth facts indicating that

                                 19
the phone was used to conduct drug deals, investigators did not

know who the users of the phone were, and tracking the phone would

facilitate the apprehension of the drug traffickers); United States v.

Sheckles, 996 F3d 330, 338-339 (6th Cir. 2021) (determining that a

warrant authorizing investigators to track a cell phone number

(later determined to belong to the appellant) through real-time CSLI

was supported by probable cause, because the affidavit underlying

the warrant set forth facts showing that the phone number belonged

to a drug distributor, whose identity was not yet known, and the

phone’s location would therefore “likely yield useful evidence of

criminal activity, including the distributor’s identity”); United

States v. Bass, 785 F3d 1043, 1049 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that the

magistrate properly concluded that there was probable cause to

support a warrant to search the appellant’s cell phone, because the

affidavit underlying the warrant “showed a fair probability that

evidence of fraud—including contacts between co-conspirators—

would be found within the cell phone”).

     We now turn to Perez’s claim regarding the Fourth

                                 20
Amendment’s particularity requirement. As an initial matter, it is

unclear whether Perez challenges both search warrants or only the

second warrant, which authorized investigators to obtain phone

records for the -1131 phone number from July 1 to 31, 2018, on this

ground. He appears to assert that both warrants authorized the

disclosure of his cell phone’s real-time tracking information and his

cell phone records for an overly broad period of time, and were

therefore insufficiently particular, but he also seems to make

arguments pertaining only to the second warrant’s date range of

July 1 to 31, 2018. We will assume, however, that Perez’s claim here

relates to both warrants, and that he properly preserved this claim

for ordinary appellate review, because it fails in any event.

          The Fourth Amendment to the United States
     Constitution “require[s] that a search warrant
     particularly describe the article or articles sought.” In
     addition to requiring that officers have enough guidance
     to locate and seize only those items the warrant
     authorizes them to seize, th[e] particularity requirement
     also   prevents    general     searches—that     “general,
     exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings” by the
     government that has been rejected since the founding as
     a violation of “fundamental rights.” The particularity
     requirement is “applied with a practical margin of

                                 21
     flexibility, depending on the type of property to be seized,
     and a description of property will be acceptable if it is as
     specific as the circumstances and nature of activity under
     investigation permit.”

State v. Wilson, 315 Ga. 613, 614-615 (884 SE2d 298) (2023)

(citations omitted).

     Perez cites no authority to support his argument that the date

ranges in the two warrants were overbroad, and as explained below,

we conclude that they were sufficiently particular under the

circumstances.    The lead investigator obtained the first search

warrant on August 3, 2018, five days after the shooting; he obtained

the second warrant on August 20, 2018, about three weeks after the

shooting. As discussed above in relation to Perez’s probable-cause

claim, at the time the warrants were issued, the facts of the

investigation, as set forth in the underlying affidavits, indicated that

on July 29, 2018, the shooter or “an accomplice to the shooter” used

the -1131 phone number to call Gardner to communicate about

purchasing drugs in the bowling alley parking lot; arrived at the

parking lot in a sedan; met with Gardner; and then shot and killed

                                  22
him. At that time, investigators had not yet located the sedan,

identified or apprehended any of the assailants, determined their

relationship to or prior contact with Gardner, or uncovered their

motive for killing him. Nor did investigators know the exact time

period during which the unidentified assailants communicated with

each other or Gardner.

     Given these circumstances, the date ranges set forth in the two

search warrants—from August 3 to September 17 (45 days, or with

respect to the tracking information, sooner if the investigation ended

before September 17) in the first warrant and July 1 to 31 (30 days)

in the second warrant—were sufficiently limited, thus preventing

an impermissible general search of data. See id. at 614. Because,

using a practical margin of flexibility, the date ranges in the search

warrants were as specific as the circumstances and nature of the

activity under investigation permitted, the warrants were not

overbroad and insufficiently particular in this respect. See id. at

615. For these reasons, the trial court did not err by denying Perez’s

motion to suppress evidence obtained from the two search warrants

                                 23
discussed above.

     (b) Perez also challenges the trial court’s denial of his second

motion, which sought to suppress evidence garnered from the

execution of a warrant to search his house on South Elizabeth Place.

The warrant, which was issued on September 24, 2018, about two

months after the shooting, authorized investigators to search for and

seize “[a]ll firearms, all ammunition, all cellular telephones,

keys/key fob to the victim’s Nissan Titan, [and] clothing containing

blood sp[]atter.” During the search, investigators seized, among

other things, Perez’s driver’s license and his cell phone, which, as

discussed above, was associated with the -1131 and -9983 phone

numbers and yielded incriminating evidence. Perez argues that the

search warrant was not based on probable cause. He also seems to

assert that the warrant was overbroad because it authorized

investigators to search for car keys and a driver’s license. These

claims are meritless.

     As to probable cause, the affidavit in support of the search

warrant set forth facts that were substantially similar to the facts

                                 24
presented in the affidavits underlying the two search warrants

discussed in Division 3 (a) above, and added the following. The

phone records for the -1131 phone number showed that the number

was associated with an address on South Elizabeth Place, and the

lead investigator learned that the -1131 number was changed on

August 2, 2018, four days after the shooting; he also learned through

the Georgia Crime Information Center that the -1131 number was

used by Perez, who lived at the address on South Elizabeth Place.

The investigator interviewed a friend of Bays, who said that Bays

had admitted that he and another man shot someone during a

marijuana deal in Lilburn. The investigator then interviewed Bays,

who had turned himself in to investigators; Bays admitted that he

and Perez shot Gardner in the car in the parking lot of the bowling

alley.   The lead investigator also attested that based on his

experience and training, the close-range shooting in the car likely

would have resulted in the transfer of Gardner’s blood to Perez’s

clothing.

     These facts in the affidavit showed that Perez (or an

                                 25
accomplice) used his cell phone to contact Gardner shortly before

Perez shot and killed Gardner. The affidavit also connected Perez

and the cell phone to the house on South Elizabeth Place. Given all

of these circumstances, the magistrate was authorized to conclude

that there was a fair probability that evidence related to the

shooting would be found at the house. See Copeland, 314 Ga. at 49.

     Perez argues that the warrant lacked probable cause because

the affidavit failed to provide the magistrate with a substantial basis

for crediting the statements made by Bays and Bays’s friend. But

the magistrate was authorized to conclude that the facts set forth in

the affidavit that were obtained during the interview of the friend

were corroborated by Bays, who had turned himself in to law

enforcement officials and implicated himself (and Perez) in the

shooting. And the magistrate could have reasonably determined

that other information in the affidavit—including information

obtained from the crime scene, the surveillance video, and Gardner’s

phone records—corroborated Bays’s account.        See, e.g., Willis v.

State, 315 Ga. 19, 30 (880 SE2d 158) (2022) (holding that trial

                                  26
counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress on the ground that a

search warrant was not supported by probable cause did not

constitute deficient performance, because the affidavit showed that

the appellant’s co-defendant gave a statement to police admitting

that he and the appellant were involved in shooting the victim; the

statement was “against [the co-defendant’s] penal interest and

based on his personal knowledge”; and that was enough in itself to

provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that

probable cause existed); Graddy v. State, 277 Ga. 765, 766 (596 SE2d

109) (2004) (explaining that “[w]hen a named informant makes a

declaration against penal interest and based on personal

observation, that in itself provides a substantial basis for the

magistrate to credit that statement”) (citation, punctuation, and

emphasis omitted). See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244-245

(103 SCt 2317, 76 LE2d 527) (1983) (“It is enough, for purposes of

assessing probable cause, that ‘corroboration through other sources

of information reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating

tale,’ thus providing ‘a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.’”)

                                  27
(citation omitted).

     In sum, given the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate

had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause

supported the search warrant. See, e.g., Moon v. State, 312 Ga. 31,

57-59 (860 SE2d 519) (2021) (concluding that probable cause

supported the issuance of a warrant authorizing a search of the

appellant’s house because the underlying affidavit said that a

surveillance video showed the car used in the shooting, the owner of

the car told investigators that she loaned it to the appellant, and

phone records showed that his cell phone was near the crime scene

around the time of the shooting, and rejecting the appellant’s

argument that the owner of the car was unreliable); Glenn v. State,

302 Ga. 276, 281-282 (806 SE2d 564) (2017) (holding that the

magistrate was authorized to conclude that probable cause existed

for the issuance of a warrant to search the appellant’s residence,

because the affidavit supporting the warrant recounted that the

appellant was identified through surveillance video of the crimes

and another person who was involved in the crimes had identified

                                28
the appellant as the shooter).11

      Perez also briefly argues that the search warrant was

overbroad because it was not probable that two of the items listed in

the warrant—a driver’s license and the keys to Gardner’s Nissan

Titan—were connected to the crimes or that they would be found in

the house on South Elizabeth Place. Contrary to Perez’s assertion,

the warrant did not authorize investigators to search for a driver’s

license, so his contention on this point fails. 12 And with respect to

      11 In support of his probable-cause claim, Perez relies on United States v.
Griffith, which held that a warrant authorizing a search of the appellant’s
apartment for cell phones, among other things, was not supported by probable
cause, because the affidavit underlying the warrant failed to set forth any facts
showing that the appellant owned a cell phone, that any cell phones would be
found in the apartment, or that they would contain evidence related to the
crimes, which occurred more than a year before the search. See 867 F3d 1265,
1268-1275 (D.C. Cir. 2017). But the circumstances in this case are dissimilar
to those in Griffith. Here, the affidavit set forth facts indicating that Perez
owned the cell phone associated with the number that contacted Gardner
shortly before Perez shot him; that Perez and his phone were linked to the
house on South Elizabeth Place; and that the phone would contain evidence
related to the crimes, which were committed only two months before the
search.

      12 Perez does not contend that the investigators’ seizure of his driver’s
license exceeded the scope of the search warrant, so we do not address that
issue. See, e.g., George v. State, 312 Ga. 801, 804-805 (865 SE2d 127) (2021)
(discussing the appellant’s claim that investigators seized evidence that was
beyond the scope of the search warrant and explaining that the plain-view
exception to the warrant requirement may apply in such circumstances).
                                       29
the car keys, the affidavit underlying the warrant attested that

investigators did not locate “the keys and key fob to [Gardner’s]

Nissan Titan truck[,] which he drove to the bowling alley.” The

magistrate could reasonably infer from this information that Perez

took Gardner’s keys and key fob at the time of the shooting and that

there was a fair probability that those items would be found at

Perez’s house. See, e.g., id. at 282 (holding that the magistrate

properly concluded that it was fairly probable that the items listed

in the search warrant, which included personal effects of the victim

that were not recovered at the crime scene, would be found at the

apartment where the appellant, a suspect in the crime, was residing,

because the fact that the appellant lived at the apartment “meant

that there was at least a ‘fair probability’ that items related to the

crime would be found there”). Accordingly, the trial court did not

err by denying Perez’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from

the search of his house.

     (c) Perez also contends that the trial court erred by denying

his third motion, which sought to suppress evidence derived from a

                                 30
warrant that permitted investigators to search his cell phone. The

warrant, which was issued on September 25, 2018, the day after

Perez’s house was searched, authorized the search and seizure of

“call logs, text messages, photos, videos, social media content

(Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook etc.) and any other application or

data that could have been used to communicate with the victim or

other suspects.”    After the warrant was issued, investigators

downloaded from Perez’s cell phone the data authorized by the

warrant, which produced incriminating evidence that was admitted

at trial. Perez argues that the trial court should have suppressed

this evidence, because the warrant was not supported by probable

cause and was overbroad, in violation of the particularity

requirement.

     With respect to probable cause, the facts set forth in the

affidavit supporting the warrant were substantially similar to the

facts presented in the affidavits described in Divisions 3 (a) and (b)

above, except there was no mention of the information obtained from

Bays and Bays’s friend. The affidavit also added that the -1131

                                 31
phone number was changed to the -9983 number on August 2, 2018;

the CSLI for the phone showed that it was near the bowling alley at

the time of the shooting; Perez was arrested on September 24; and

investigators seized his cell phone, which investigators confirmed

was associated with the -1131 and -9983 phone numbers.

     Based on the facts in the affidavit, the magistrate could have

reasonably concluded that Perez or one of his accomplices used

Perez’s cell phone to call Gardner about purchasing drugs in the

bowling alley parking lot; that Perez (and his accomplices) were in

the sedan that Gardner entered just before he was shot; and that

Perez (or an accomplice) was the shooter. Given the totality of the

circumstances presented in the affidavit, the magistrate had a

substantial basis for concluding that there was a fair probability

that the cell phone would contain evidence of the crimes. Thus, the

magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable

cause existed to issue the search warrant. See Copeland, 314 Ga. at

49-51. See also Glispie v. State, 300 Ga. 128, 133 (793 SE2d 381)

(2016) (holding that the magistrate had a substantial basis for

                                32
concluding that probable cause existed to issue a search warrant for

the appellant’s cell phone because the affidavit underlying the

warrant said that police had found drugs, cash, and two cell phones

in the appellant’s possession as part of a lawful search incident to

arrest, which authorized the magistrate to infer that the cell phones

were used as communicative devices with third parties for drug

deals).

     Perez also contends that the warrant was overbroad because it

authorized the search and seizure of text messages, social media,

photos, and videos, without showing how this data was connected to

the crimes and without any temporal limitation.        As explained

below, we conclude that the warrant was sufficiently particular.

     To begin, the warrant did not simply provide an unbounded

description authorizing the search and seizure of any and all data

on the cell phone, without linking that data to the crimes at issue.

Rather, the language of the warrant, in context, makes clear that it

authorized the search and seizure of only those classes of

applications and data that could have been used to communicate

                                 33
with the victim or other suspects.

     Specifically, after stating that there was probable cause to

believe that the crimes of felony murder and aggravated assault had

been committed, the warrant listed certain classes of applications

and data to be searched for and seized: “call logs, text messages,

photos, videos, [and] social media content (Snapchat, Instagram,

Facebook etc.).” This series of items was followed by the phrase “and

any other application or data that could have been used to

communicate with the victim or other suspects.” The language “and

any other application or data,” read in proper context with the rest

of the sentence, which contains a lengthy list of particular types of

applications and data, indicates that the phrase “and any other

application or data that could have been used to communicate with

the victim or other suspects” modifies the entire list of items

preceding it. In other words, the warrant authorized the search of

call logs that could have shown communications with the victim or

other   suspects,   text   messages    that   could   have    shown

communications with the victim or other suspects, and so on. See

                                 34
Scott v. State, 299 Ga. 568, 572-573 (788 SE2d 468) (2016)

(explaining, in the context of construing the meaning of a statute,

that “a qualifying phrase appearing at the end of a series should be

read to apply to all items in the series ‘when such an application

would represent a natural construction’”) (citation omitted);

Merriam-Webster            Dictionary,         https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary (defining “and” in this context as “a function

word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the

same class or type—used to join sentence elements of the same

grammatical rank or function”; and defining “any other” in this

context as “in addition to the . . . thing just mentioned”). See also

ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE

INTERPRETATION    OF   LEGAL TEXTS 147 (2012) (explaining that

“[w]hen there is a straightforward, parallel construction that

involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a . . . postpositive modifier

normally applies to the entire series”).

     Thus, reading the warrant as a whole, the phrase “and any

other application or data that could have been used to communicate

                                  35
with the victim or other suspects” is most reasonably understood to

limit all of the listed classes of applications and data to applications

and data that could have been used to communicate with the victim

or other suspects. See Blach v. Diaz-Verson, 303 Ga. 63, 64-66 (810

SE2d 129) (2018) (construing the phrase “‘or other organization held

out to the public as a place of deposit of funds or medium of savings

or collective investment’” at the end of a list of kinds of banks, credit

unions, associations, companies, and funds in a statute defining

“financial institution” as “describ[ing] generally all the entities” in

the preceding list and explaining that the word “or” may be used as

a reiterative term); Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance

Co., 643 F3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the phrase “‘or

any other tangible thing or item of monetary value,’” which followed

a list of prohibited items in a statute, meant that those items

constituted “‘tangible thing[s] or item[s] of monetary value’”). 13

      13Several of us recently have expressed concerns about whether catch-
all phrases (or “residual clauses”) in a search warrant—like the phrase “‘any
other evidence of the crime of murder’” after a list of items to be searched for
and seized—can limit the list of items preceding it and thus transform an

                                      36
      And contrary to Perez’s argument, the breadth of the search

was supported by the facts set forth in the affidavit, which indicated

that Perez (and, potentially, any accomplices) used his cell phone to

communicate with Gardner about arranging a drug deal in the

bowling alley parking lot, where Perez or an accomplice shot and

killed him. Perez argues that the affidavit stated only that he or an

accomplice used the cell phone to call Gardner, with no mention of

contacting him through text messages, photos, videos, or social

otherwise general warrant into a sufficiently particular one. Wilson, 315 Ga.
at 617-620 (Peterson, P.J., concurring, joined by Boggs, C.J., and Warren,
Bethel, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ.) (suggesting that a catch-all phrase in the
description of things to be seized does not necessarily invalidate an otherwise
particular warrant, but that this Court’s precedent suggesting the inverse—
that a warrant lacking in particularity can be saved by a catch-all phrase—
may be incorrect) (citation omitted). But the phrase “and any other application
or data that could have been used to communicate with the victim or other
suspects” at the end of the list of applications and data described here does not
implicate such concerns. As discussed in our analysis above, read in context
and in its most natural and reasonable way, that phrase modifies the rest of
the list and confines the types of listed applications and data to a specific
category: applications and data that could have been used to communicate with
the victim or other suspects. Thus, in contrast to a catch-all phrase like “any
other evidence of the crime of murder”—which expands a list of certain items
to be searched for and seized to encompass any other sort of evidence of the
crimes at issue—the phrase here restricts the applications and data to be
searched for and seized to applications and data that could have been used to
communicate with the victim or other suspects. See id. at 620 (explaining that
“the words of [a] warrant matter”).
                                       37
media. But given all of the facts set forth in the affidavit, the

magistrate was authorized to make a practical, common-sense

determination that Perez, and any other assailants, could have

communicated with Gardner and with each other not only through

phone calls, but also through text messages, photos, videos, or social

media content, and that there was a fair probability that evidence

related to the crimes would be found within that sort of data on

Perez’s cell phone. See United States v. Reichling, 781 F3d 883, 887

(7th Cir. 2015) (explaining, in the context of analyzing whether a

magistrate properly concluded that probable cause supported a

warrant to search his residence for digital and non-digital storage

devices, that “‘a judge is given license to draw reasonable inferences

concerning where the evidence referred to in the affidavit is likely to

be kept, taking into account the nature of the evidence and the

offense,’” and that the probable-cause inquiry must be grounded in

both an understanding of criminal behavior and of modern

technology) (citation omitted). See also Bass, 785 F3d at 1049-1050

(holding that a warrant authorizing a search of the appellant’s cell

                                  38
phone for “any records of communication, indicia of use, ownership,

or possession, including electronic calendars, address books, e-mails,

and chat logs” was sufficiently particular, because the warrant

sought evidence of fraudulent conduct related to the charges of wire

fraud, credit fraud, and identity theft; the affidavit set forth a

substantial basis to believe such evidence existed on the cell phone;

and officers could not have known where such evidence was located

on the phone or in what format).

     Perez also complains that the warrant failed to expressly

confine the data to be searched for and seized to a specific date

range. But he cites no authority in support of that argument. And

the facts set forth in the affidavit indicated that at the time the

warrant was issued, investigators were still determining whether

additional suspects, whose identities and whereabouts were

unknown,    were    involved   in    the   shooting.   Under    these

circumstances, we cannot say that the warrant was impermissibly

general on the basis that it did not set forth a specific time frame.

For these reasons, Perez’s claim that the search warrant was

                                    39
overbroad, and thus insufficiently particular, fails.      Compare

Wilson, 315 Ga. at 613-616 (holding that a warrant that authorized

investigators to search for and seize from the appellant’s cell phone

“any and all stored electronic information, including but not limited

to; user account information, stored phone information, images, text

messages, videos, documents, e-mails, internet activity, call logs,

contact information, phone information, or any deleted data” was

not sufficiently particular, because the warrant failed to limit the

search and seizure to evidence connected to the crimes at issue).

     Consequently, the trial court did not err by denying Perez’s

motion to suppress evidence garnered from the search of his cell

phone. Thus, Perez’s claims regarding each of the warrants he

challenges fail.

     4. As discussed in footnote 1 above, Perez was found guilty of,

among other crimes, voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of

malice murder and felony murder based on armed robbery. The trial

court ultimately vacated the voluntary-manslaughter guilty verdict

and sentenced Perez for the felony-murder count. Perez contends

                                 40
that under the modified merger rule set forth in Edge v. State, 261

Ga. 865 (414 SE2d 463) (1992), the trial court should have sentenced

him for voluntary manslaughter rather than felony murder based

on armed robbery. 14 We disagree.

     In rejecting a similar claim in Smith v. State, 272 Ga. 874 (536

SE2d 514) (2000), we explained that

     [i]n Edge, this court adopted a modified merger rule,
     holding that, when a single aggravated assault is the
     basis for felony murder and voluntary manslaughter
     charges, the defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced
     for felony murder if the jury also finds that the assault is
     mitigated by provocation and passion and convicts the
     defendant of voluntary manslaughter. We adopted such
     a rule because “[t]o hold otherwise would eliminate
     voluntary manslaughter as a separate form of homicide
     since, in that event, every voluntary manslaughter would
     also be a felony murder.” In Edge, we noted that the
     problem we were addressing “does not exist if the
     underlying felony is independent of the killing itself, such
     as burglary, robbery, or even an assault that is directed
     against someone other than the homicide victim.”

Id. at 879 (footnotes containing citations omitted). Consequently,

     14 Perez also contends that he should have been sentenced for voluntary
manslaughter rather than felony murder based on aggravated assault.
Although the jury found Perez guilty of felony murder based on aggravated
assault, he was not convicted of or sentenced for that crime, so his claim
regarding it is moot. See Williams v. State, 313 Ga. 325, 332 (869 SE2d 389)
(2022).
                                    41
we have held that “the modified merger rule does not apply when

the underlying felony, such as armed robbery, is independent of the

killing itself.” Id. at 879-880. See also Grimes v. State, 293 Ga. 559,

561 (748 SE2d 441) (2013) (reiterating this principle and explaining

that “we generally do not apply the Edge modified merger rule ‘to

any felony murder conviction in which the underlying felony was not

the aggravated assault of the murder victim’”) (citation omitted).

     Here, like in Smith, Perez’s felony-murder conviction was

based on an armed robbery that was “independent of the killing

itself.” 272 Ga. at 880. Although Perez’s act of using a handgun to

take marijuana from Gardner proximately caused his death, and

thus supported his conviction for felony murder, the evidence

presented suggested that the act was not integral to the killing.

Thus, Edge’s modified merger rule does not apply, and Perez was

properly convicted of and sentenced for felony murder. See id.;

Grimes, 293 Ga. at 561-562 (rejecting the appellant’s claim that he

should have been sentenced for voluntary manslaughter instead of

felony murder based on attempted armed robbery under the rule in

                                  42
Edge, because the attempted armed robbery was independent of the

killing itself). Compare Sanders v. State, 281 Ga. 36, 37-38 (635

SE2d 772) (2006) (holding that the rule in Edge applied where the

same act of setting the victim on fire resulted in the commission of

all three of the felonies underlying three counts of felony murder—

aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and arson in the first

degree—and caused the death of the victim, so the felonies were

“integral to the killing”).

     And to the extent Perez asserts that the jury’s guilty verdicts

of voluntary manslaughter and felony murder based on armed

robbery were mutually exclusive, we reject that argument, just as

we rejected a similar argument in Smith.       See 272 Ga. at 880

(holding that “[b]ecause the intent relevant to the conviction for

felony murder was the underlying intent for armed robbery and

because intent to kill, as well as mitigating factors such as

provocation and passion, are irrelevant to that intent, the jury’s

verdict of felony murder does not constitute a finding that [the

appellant] did not act with provocation and passion in assaulting the

                                 43
victim and does not conflict with the jury’s verdict of voluntary

manslaughter”).

    Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

                               44