Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found Cobb guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. See Wilson, 261 Ga. App. at 577-578 (1); Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817, 818 (2) ( 350 SE2d 825) (1986). 2.
1. Although it is well settled that recent unexplained possession of stolen goods does not per se support a guilty verdict, Bankston v. State, 251 Ga. 730 ( 309 S.E.2d 369) (1983), it is equally well settled that such possession raises an inference of guilt. Moon v. State, 258 Ga. 748 ( 375 S.E.2d 442) (1988); Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986). Cases cited by appellant do not support his contention to the contrary.
Taking that inference into consideration along with corroborating evidence, we find that there was sufficient evidence to convince any rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt of the burglaries of which he was convicted. Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817, 818 ( 350 S.E.2d 825). See also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560).
Defendant testified that he requested an attorney and that he refused to make a statement concerning his guilt or innocence of the crime charged. "`In deciding the admissibility of a statement during a Jackson-Denno hearing, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances and must determine the admissibility of the statement under the preponderance of the evidence standard.' . . . Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986). `Although not without conflict, the evidence produced at that hearing did support the trial court's finding that (defendant's) statement had been freely and voluntarily made. "A trial court's findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admission of in-custody statements will be upheld on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
The inference together with the other probative evidence was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find Hurston guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979); Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 (2) ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986). 2.
(Punctuation omitted). Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986). "Although not without conflict, the evidence produced at that hearing did support the trial court's finding that [defendant's] statement had been freely and voluntarily made. `A trial court's findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admission of in-custody statements will be upheld on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
Defendant's evidence is that his reason for not signing the Miranda warnings form was so he would not have to answer questions without an attorney and that the written statement had been altered after he signed it. "`"In deciding the admissibility of a statement during a Jackson-Denno hearing, the trial court `must consider the totality of the circumstances' and must determine the admissibility of the statement under the `preponderance of the evidence' standard. Unless the factual and credibility findings of the trial court are `clearly erroneous,' the trial court's decision on admissibility will be upheld on appeal. (Cit.)" Fowler v. State, 246 Ga. 256, 258 ( 271 S.E.2d 168) (1980).' Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986); Cunningham v. State, 255 Ga. 727 (2) ( 342 S.E.2d 299) (1986); Pierce v. State, 180 Ga. App. 847 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 781) (1986)." Richardson v. State, 182 Ga. App. 827, 828 (3) ( 357 S.E.2d 162).
Unless clearly erroneous, the decision will be upheld. Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986). Based on proof introduced by the state, defendant's statements were not the result of interrogation.
Unless the factual and credibility findings of the trial court are "clearly erroneous," the trial court's decision on admissibility will be upheld on appeal. (Cit.)' Fowler v. State, 246 Ga. 256, 258 ( 271 S.E.2d 168) (1980)." Howard v. State, 180 Ga. App. 817 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 825) (1986); Cunningham v. State, 255 Ga. 727 (2) ( 342 S.E.2d 299) (1986); Pierce v. State, 180 Ga. App. 847 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 781) (1986). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no error in the trial court's conclusion concerning the admissibility of defendant's confession.