SPOKANE - A state appellate court upheld the conviction of a man convicted of robbing an Ephrata gas station in 2010.

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, decided the Miranda warning given to Cody Miller were adequate, and he didn't need to receive the juvenile version of the warning.

Miller was 17, when he and Andrew Zastrow drove to the parking lot of Ephrata's Best Western Hotel. Zastrow entered the nearby convenience store and was buying a soda, when Miller came in holding a gun and a bag, and wearing a bandana, according to court records.

The investigators recognized Zastrow from the surveillance tape, and asked him to come to the police station for an interview the same evening as the robbery, according to the opinion.

"(An Ephrata officer) drove Mr. Zastrow home after the initial Nov. 25 interview and saw Cody Miller waiting outside Zastrow's house," according to the opinion. "Mr. Miller was dressed similarly to the robber - he was wearing a tan coat, faded baggy jeans, and black and white tennis shoes. (The officer) asked Mr. Miller if he would speak with police. Mr. Miller agreed to be interviewed at the police department."

The officer who interviewed Miller believed he was 18 and gave him the standard Miranda warning, without using the additional language commonly used for juveniles, according to the opinion. Miller waived his rights, telling police he'd been with Zastrow and they went to the hotel. Miller denied committing the robbery, saying he went into the hotel to use the computer.

The juvenile warning contains a warning the items said could be used in either juvenile or adult court, according to the opinion.

When Miller's attorney tried to suppress the statement, the judge determined Miller was given a proper warning and the waiver was valid, according to the opinion. A jury convicted Miller of robbery in the first degree and he was sentenced to three years in prison.

The appellate court agreed, stating the police aren't required to give additional warning to juveniles, according to the opinion.

"While the question presented by this appeal is novel, well-settled principles of law govern our analysis," according to the opinion. "Prior to conducting a custodial interrogation, police must first advise a suspect of his right to remain silent and provide notice that anything said to the police might be used against him, of the right to consult with an attorney prior to answering any questions and have the attorney present for questioning, that counsel will be appointed for him if desired, and that he can end questioning at any time."

The appellate court ruled Miller knew what the police wanted to talk to him about and the nature of the charge, according to the opinion.

"He was not confused or misled about his circumstances," according to the opinion. "The trial court reviewed the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the waiver was valid. We agree with that assessment."