Tellis Lamar Clark was tried before a jury and found guilty of two alternative counts of the felony murder of Tamarcus Jordan, two separate counts which charged the underlying felonies of armed robbery and burglary, possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and aggravated assault against Phyllis Griffin. Treating the alternative count charging felony murder while in the commission of burglary as surplusage for sentencing purposes, the trial court merged armed robbery into the felony murder count based on that underlying felony, entered judgments of conviction for all remaining counts, and sentenced Clark to life imprisonment for the one count of felony murder, concurrent 20-year terms without parole for burglary and aggravated assault, and a consecutive 5-year term without parole for each count of firearm possession. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Clark appeals.1 1. Construed in support of the verdicts, the evidence, including eyewitness testimony of Clark’s co-indictee Cesar Sessions and of Ms. Griffin, the victim of the assault, shows that Clark, who was a convicted felon, and others planned to rob Jordan in his home. While Sessions was in the living room with Jordan looking at some cocaine, Clark entered the home, pointed a gun at them, left the room, returned with Ms. Griffin, and held the gun at her head. After Jordan jumped up, Clark urged Sessions to “burn him.” A struggle took place, Jordan broke away, and Sessions fatally shot him in the back and head. Sessions took money from Jordan’s pocket and gave some to Clark, and also took the cocaine. This evidence, which was properly admitted, was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Clark guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Williams v. State , 276 Ga. 384 1 578 SE2d 858 2003; Morgan v. State , 271 Ga. 885, 886 1 525 SE2d 691 2000.
2. Clark urges that the trial court erroneously denied a motion to suppress his videotaped statement to the police, because certain comments by the interviewing detective constituted a hope of benefit as proscribed by OCGA § 24-3-50. However, neither the videotape nor a transcript of the audio portion is included in the appellate record. Also the index to exhibits indicates that the videotape was retained by the court reporter. Barrett v. State , 263 Ga. 533, 535 3 436 SE2d 480 1993, overruled on other grounds, Wall v. State , 269 Ga. 506, 508-509 2 500 SE2d 904 1998; Jarvis v. State , 253 Ga. App. 581, 582 1 560 SE2d 29 2002. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the detective was unable to confirm from his memory the exact comments about which Clark now complains on appeal. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record for us to review. Barrett v. State , supra at 536 3; Jarvis v. State , supra at 583 1.
