☢ test - Í

held incommunicado or refused the right to see friends or relatives; (5) interrogation before formal charges were referred; (6) methods of interrogation; (7) length of interrogation; (8) prior experience in giving custodial statements; and (9) subsequent repudiation,’” quoting Perry v. State, 175 Ga.App. 301, 333 S.E.2d 178 (1985). “The record shows that, at the time of his arrest and custodial interview, Medlin was 17 years old and had a tenth grade education. During a Jackson-Denno hearing, the investigator testified that he read Medlin his Miranda rights, and Medlin signed a waiver form; Medlin never asked for his parents or an attorney; Medlin did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs; the investigator advised Medlin that he was going to ask questions about the marijuana and the armed robbery; the investigator never threatened or coerced Medlin, promised him leniency in exchange for his cooperation, or discussed bond with him; and Medlin never repudiated his statement. The investigator also testified that he was in the same room as Medlin when he wrote the statement; Medlin read over the statement when it was finished; and Medlin made three corrections, then signed the statement in ten different places and initialed the corrections. In addition to this evidence, the State presented Medlin’s bond application, which Medlin admitted to signing, and the court was able to compare his signature on the application with those on his statement.” At trial, defendant contended that his signatures and initials on the first page of the statement were genuine, but were forged on the remaining pages. Note, other cases hold that the Riley factors cited don’t apply to 17-year olds. See Woodward (September 15, 2003), below. Swain v. State, 285 Ga.App. 550, 647 S.E.2d 88 (May 25, 2007). Trial court properly found that 15-year old defendant’s confession was voluntary, based on Riley factors [see Williams (April 19, 2005), below ]. “While the detective used some profanities during the interview, called Swain a liar and a coward, and told Swain some lies regarding other evidence that they had against him, the detective did not threaten Swain, nor did the detective promise him anything in exchange for his confession. Swain has failed to cite to any authority to support his argument that the methods the detective used were improper or otherwise required the exclusion of the evidence.” Short v. State, 276 Ga.App. 340, 623 S.E.2d 195 (November 14, 2005). Sixteen-year old defendant’s statement was admissible. “[Officer] testified, among other things, that he read Short his Miranda rights when Short was arrested, and Short signed a Miranda waiver form before his interview with police the next day. Wynn also informed Short that he had the right to have a parent present during the interview, and Short responded that his mother ‘wouldn’t come’ because she was unhappy with his behavior. Wynn nonetheless called Short’s mother, who declined to come to the police station, saying that she was ‘through with [Short].’ Short’s mother hung up the telephone after telling Short that she was ashamed of him and did not want to see him again. Short then elected to proceed with the interview without his mother present. Wynn further testified that Short had completed tenth grade at the time of the interview and communicated like an average 16 year old. He did not appear to be mentally deficient, suffering from any disability, or unable to understand the words Wynn used. Wynn explained the charges to Short, but stated that he was not sure whether Short would be charged with the sexual offenses. Short never asked for a lawyer or stated that he did not want to talk to police. According to Wynn, he did not force, threaten, or coerce Short into giving a statement.” Williams v. State, 273 Ga.App. 42, 614 S.E.2d 146 (April 19, 2005). “OCGA § 15-11-47(a)(3) and (4) provide that the person taking a child into custody shall ‘without taking the child elsewhere ... [b]ring the child immediately before the juvenile court or promptly contact a juvenile court intake officer ... or [b]ring the child who is suspected of committing a delinquent act before the superior court of the county where the delinquent act occurred....’ It is undisputed that these predicate acts did not take place before Williams was taken into custody and questioned.” “The Georgia Supreme Court has held that ‘the violation of the Juvenile Code [intake procedures] does not render [an] incriminating statement per se inadmissible.’ (Citation omitted.) Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 805(3) (505 S.E.2d 731) (1998). The relevant inquiry is not whether the intake procedures were followed to the letter before Williams’s statement was taken, but whether Williams made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights when he gave the incriminating statement. Id. at 804-805(3). To determine whether such a knowing and intelligent waiver took place, the court considers (1) the age of the accused, (2) his education, (3) his knowledge as to both the substance of the charge and the nature of his rights to consult with an attorney and remain silent, (4) whether the juvenile is held incommunicado or allowed to consult with relatives, friends or an attorney, (5) whether the juvenile was interrogated before or after formal charges had been filed, (6) the methods used in interrogations, (7) the length of interrogations, (8) whether the juvenile refused to voluntarily give statements on prior occasions, and (9) whether the juvenile has repudiated an extra judicial statement at a later date. Riley v. State, 237 Ga. 124, 128 (226 S.E.2d 922) (1976). Here, the evidence at the Jackson-Denno hearing revealed that Williams was fifteen years old at the time of the shooting and that police discussed with him the nature of the charges against him. Police read Williams his Miranda rights, and all questioning took place with Williams's mother present. Both Williams and his mother voluntarily signed a waiver of counsel form that explained Williams’s Miranda rights prior to any questioning taking place. Williams averred that no threats, promises, tricks, or other forms of persuasion were used to