ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

KAREN BAKER, JUDGE

DIVISION III

JEVON CORNELL JACKSON

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-1474

NOVEMBER 7, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR2000-168]

HONORABLE SAMUEL TURNER JR. CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant appeals three convictions: murder in the first degree, aggravated robbery, and residential burglary. His appeal is based upon a single point stated as follows: The trial court committed reversible error when it denied appellant's motion to suppress his custodial statement. When a custodial statement is challenged, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntarily given. Baker v. State, 289 Ark. 430, 711 S.W.2d 816 (1986). On appeal we make an independent determination of this issue considering the totality of the circumstances and affirm the trial court's ruling unless it is clearly erroneous. Fleming v. State, 284 Ark. 307, 681 S.W.2d 390 (1984). We recognize the inherently coercive nature of custodial waivers and acknowledge that a suspect's waiver of rights is valid only if it is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Brawley v. State, 306 Ark. 609, 816 S.W.2d 598 (1991)(citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). The voluntariness requirement is concerned with any sort of coercive or deceptive police activity, while

the knowledge and intelligence requirements are concerned with the level of comprehension of theaccused. Id.

Only if the " 'totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation reveals' both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived." Burin v. State, 298 Ark. 611, 770 S.W.2d 125 (1989); see also Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1140, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). In our review of the totality of the circumstances, we defer to the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses. Smith v. State, 286 Ark. 247, 691 S.W.2d 154 (1985).

In this case, appellant's challenge to the voluntariness of the statement is based upon his allegation that the police officers violated Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.2 and 2.3 by failing to advise the appellant that he had no legal obligation to comply with a request for cooperation until after he was at the police station. This argument further relies upon the fact that the nineteen-year-old appellant was separated from his mother to establish that he in some way lacked sufficient comprehension to validly execute a knowing and intelligent waiver. Appellant's argument emphasizes two points: (1) that the forms which appellant executed at the police station were available for the officers to provide to appellant at his home, where his mother was present, and (2) that the officers' testimony that appellant was verbally advised that he was not obligated to accompany them was not corroborated by additional evidence.

Appellant's interview at the station was videotaped. Included on the tape was the officers' review of the waiver forms designed to evidence compliance with Miranda and Rule 2.3 requirements and appellant's execution of those forms. The trial court viewed the tape and observed the appellant's demeanor as well as the officers' activity. Appellant stated on these tapes that he came to the station voluntarily. The court ruled that appellant did in fact voluntarily go to the police station, executed the forms, and twice had the opportunity to back out but chose not to. The judge,after viewing the video, concluded that appellant knew exactly what he was talking about and told the truth in his statement to the police. The court particularly noted the calmness exhibited by appellant during the course of the interview and that the court was convinced of the veracity of appellant's statement.

In reviewing the totality of the circumstances and giving due deference to the trial court on credibility issues, we find no error and affirm.

Neal, J., agrees.

Roaf, J., concurs.