☢ test - Í

forth his Miranda rights in Spanish, that Amador indicated that he understood those rights, or that Amador initialed and signed the waiver form.” Trial court could credit this evidence over defendant’s later claim not to understand. Hernandez v. State, 300 Ga.App. 792, 686 S.E.2d 373 (November 5, 2009). Evidence supported trial court’s finding that defendant understood English sufficiently to make his custodial statement voluntary and admissible. “The officer asked Hernandez if he spoke English, and Hernandez replied that he did ‘enough to understand what we were talking about.’ The officer testified that Hernandez appeared to understand their conversation and did not appear ‘lost’ while they talked.” Salinas-Gomez v. State, 287 Ga.App. 384, 651 S.E.2d 501 (August 30, 2007). Evidence supported trial court’s finding that defendant’s custodial statement was voluntary. Officer read Miranda warning in Spanish; defendant contends “that he did not understand all of his Miranda rights because one of the Spanish words used by the officer in translating the rights to him had two possible meanings. Gomez contends that, as a result, the concept that he could have an attorney appointed to represent him at the interview was never clearly and properly communicated to him. The record, however, belies Gomez’s contention. The officer testified that although the word at issue did have two meanings, she made sure that Gomez understood all of the concepts that she was trying to communicate to him, by stopping and clarifying or using different words if necessary until he understood. Furthermore, Gomez himself testified through a translator at the Jackson- Denno hearing that the reason he never asked for an attorney during the interview was because he believed the matter was so simple and straightforward that he did not need an attorney present.” Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392, 627 S.E.2d 579 (March 13, 2006). “[Defendant] submits that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress her custodial statement because (1) the State failed to use a certified interpreter; and (2) the Spanish version of the Miranda warnings given to her was incomplete. Whether an accused understood the Miranda warnings depends on the totality of the circumstances, not solely the skill of the interpreter. Nguyen v. State, 273 Ga. 389(2)(b), 543 S.E.2d 5 (2001). There is no requirement that Miranda warnings be given by a certified translator . In Nguyen, supra, this Court upheld the validity of Miranda warnings administered in Vietnamese by the defendant’s son, who was not a certified interpreter. So long as the accused understands the explanation of rights, an imperfect translation does not rule out a valid waiver. Tieu v. State, 257 Ga. 281(2), 358 S.E.2d 247 (1987). Here, the record shows that the city marshal who acted as a translator was called upon regularly to serve as a translator by various law enforcement agencies. [Defendant] points to no error in the translation; therefore, she has not demonstrated prejudice. See Choi v. State, 269 Ga. 376(3), 497 S.E.2d 563 (1998). Nor do we find any infirmity in the content of the Miranda warnings given in Spanish. It was established at a Jackson v. Denno hearing that both defendants had the equivalent of a ninth grade education in Mexico and that they could read and write Spanish. ‘The simple fact that there may have been some inconsistency in the exact form of the various warnings does not establish that the statement was involuntary. See Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989).’ Ramirez v. State, 279 Ga. 569, 576(8), 619 S.E.2d 668 (2005). See also Osborne v. State, 263 Ga. 214(4), 430 S.E.2d 576 (1993). The Spanish translation of the Miranda form given to defendants clearly expressed the required concepts; any deviation was at most minor and inconsequential. Ramirez, supra. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court was authorized to conclude that defendants knowingly and voluntarily waived their constitutional right to remain silent and their right to counsel.” Accord, Pena v. State , 297 Ga. 418, 774 S.E.2d 652 (June 29, 2015) (trial court properly “found that, even though the detective used ‘some unintelligible words,’ ‘the totality of the circumstances show[ed] that the defendant ... was aware that he was being informed of his critical Miranda rights at the time.’”). Rodriguez v. State, 274 Ga.App. 549, 618 S.E.2d 177 (July 21, 2005). After receiving Miranda warnings in Spanish, Defendant gave officers verbal statement in Spanish, which was immediately translated into English and reduced to writing. The statement was read back to defendant in Spanish, he confirmed its accuracy and signed it. “In the absence of any evidence that Rodriguez failed to understand the Miranda warnings given immediately before the interview or that the English version of his statement was inaccurate, and since we cannot assume that Rodriguez did not know that his signature would validate the statement, the trial court’s determination that the statement was freely and voluntarily made was not clearly erroneous. See Cortez v. State, 253 Ga.App. 699, 702(1)(c) (561 S.E.2d 142) (2002) (disapproved on other grounds, Miller v. State , 285 Ga. 285, 676 S.E.2d 173 (April 28, 2009)) (in absence of evidence that statement was inaccurate, English translation of Spanish speaker’s statement is admissible without Spanish version); Choi v. State, 269 Ga. 376, 377(3) (497 S.E.2d 563) (1998) (statement is admissible when defendant cannot point to specific errors in translation).” Nguyen v. State, 269 Ga.App. 730, 605 S.E.2d 130 (September 24, 2004). “Where, as here, the record shows that a