Manchester v. State, A97A0708

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Writing for the CourtRUFFIN; BIRDSONG, P.J., and ELDRIDGE
Citation487 S.E.2d 449,226 Ga.App. 653
Parties, 97 FCDR 2202 MANCHESTER v. The STATE.
Docket NumberNo. A97A0708,A97A0708
Decision Date03 June 1997

Page 449

487 S.E.2d 449
226 Ga.App. 653, 97 FCDR 2202

No. A97A0708.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
June 3, 1997.

[226 Ga.App. 657] Shaul, Sheinis & Hudson, Richard N. Sheinis, Atlanta, for appellant.

Page 450

Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Ben L. Leutwyler III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

[226 Ga.App. 653] RUFFIN, Judge.

A jury found Paul Manchester guilty of two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Manchester appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress pretrial statements and his motion for new trial. For reasons which follow, we affirm.

The convictions stemmed from the robbery of a Subway restaurant located in Duluth, Georgia. At approximately 10:30 p.m., a masked individual entered the restaurant, pulled out a gun, and demanded money. The manager gave the individual the money in the cash register, and a customer emptied her purse on the counter. The perpetrator took the money and exited the store.

Four days after the robbery, Manchester appeared at the Gwinnett County Detention Center. Deputy Lana Rutledge, who was working internal security at the detention center, testified that she was asked to report to the detention center lobby because Manchester was turning himself in for committing a crime. She described the lobby as a large, open room with no holding cells, in which people are free to come and go. When Deputy Rutledge arrived, Manchester was sitting in the lobby. Deputy Rutledge asked Manchester for his name and address. Although Manchester gave [226 Ga.App. 654] her the information, Rutledge could not locate an arrest warrant for him. Rutledge asked Manchester if he was sure there was a warrant for his arrest. According to Rutledge, Manchester responded that "there might not be if nobody knew who did it." Deputy Rutledge told Manchester to "stay where he was," and returned to the front desk to discuss the situation with another deputy.

After speaking with the other deputy, Deputy Rutledge asked Manchester to come over to the front desk with her. When Manchester came to the front desk, Rutledge told him that she was going to ask him some questions. Manchester responded that " 'he was reluctant to answer any questions.' " Another deputy explained to Manchester that in order to help him, they had to ascertain whether he committed a crime. In response to questions posed by Deputy Rutledge, Manchester then stated that he robbed the Subway off Peachtree Industrial Boulevard at approximately 11:00 p.m.

Rutledge then accompanied Manchester back to the seating area while the other deputy contacted the Duluth Police Department. According to Rutledge, when they arrived at the seating area, she did not initiate any conversation, but "Manchester volunteered the fact he could prove that he had committed the crime...." Manchester told Rutledge that "he had gotten $280 in the robbery[,] ... he had used a gun[,] ... [and he] had a mask on." Manchester was then placed in a holding cell where he waited until investigators from the Duluth Police Department questioned him. Deputy Rutledge testified that Manchester was not in custody until he was placed in the holding cell.

When Duluth Police Department Detectives Logan and Stephens arrived at the detention center approximately one and one-half hours later, they met with Manchester in an interview room. Detective Stephens asked Manchester what he was there for, and Manchester replied " 'because of the robbery at Subway' or 'I did the robbery.' " Detective Stephens then read Manchester his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Immediately thereafter, Manchester stated " 'you can't use this. I know my rights. You can't use this.' " Detective Stephens proceeded with the questioning during which Manchester periodically repeated the preceding statements. Detective Logan testified that no promises were made to Manchester, that he never requested an attorney, and that he never told the detectives that he wanted to stop the interview.

Manchester moved the trial court to suppress all the statements he made to both the Gwinnett County deputies and the Duluth detectives. The trial court denied the motion with regard to most of the statements, but suppressed Manchester's response to Detective Stephens' first question, which the court found was posed while Manchester was in custody but before he was informed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Thompson v. State, A98A1743.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • August 20, 1998
    ...situation to constitute restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest. Manchester v. State, 226 Ga.App. 653, 655(1), 487 S.E.2d 449 [(1997)]." (Punctuation omitted.) Hendrix v. State, 230 Ga.App. 604, 605-606, 497 S.E.2d 236 Applying these standa......
  • Casey v. State, No. A00A1229
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • November 14, 2000
    ...concerning their travel. Casey and Jones were not in custody at that time; thus, no Miranda warnings were required. Manchester v. State, 226 Ga.App. 653, 655(1), 487 S.E.2d 449 (1997). As this evidence was properly admitted, any error in admitting cumulative evidence regarding Casey's and J......
  • Sims v. State, A99A2166.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • February 22, 2000
    ...omitted.) Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1528-1529, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994); Manchester v. State, 226 Ga.App. 653, 655(1), 487 S.E.2d 449 Sims and the other occupants of the apartment were questioned at the police station, but Sims was not arrested or forcibly de......
  • Hendrix v. State, A97A2579
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 9, 1997 constitute restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.' " Manchester v. State, 226 Ga.App. 653, 655(1), 487 S.E.2d 449. Applying these standards to the evidence before us, we conclude the trial court's finding that the appellant's statement......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT