05-0939 STATE V. CARTWRIGHT

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2006 » 05-0939 STATE V. CARTWRIGHT

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-0939 STATE V. CARTWRIGHT

Case Date: 01/11/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, 2006

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. DOMINIQUE DEON CARTWRIGHT, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 04-16016 CASE NO. 3D05-939

Opinion filed January 11, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline Hogan Scola, Judge. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Armas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. and Maria T.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, SUAREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J. The defendant, Dominique Cartwright, was convicted of use or possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cannabis,

possession

of

cocaine,

and

possession

of

a

firearm

by

a

convicted felon, based upon a plea of guilty to the charges following an adverse ruling on his motion to suppress the

evidence (cocaine, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and marijuana) seized from his apartment absent a warrant. 1 As we conclude that

the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress, we affirm his convictions and sentences. Prior suppression to discussing we the note evidence that the presented defendant's at the

hearing,

motion

asserted, in part, that he rented a room on a weekly basis from Sergio Garcia, a car the owner of the on building; the lower that Mr. Garcia of the

operated

stereo

business

portion

building and rented the apartments located on the upper portion of the building; and that "Garcia allegedly invited the officers to inspect the premises." Detective Mead, an experienced narcotics officer, testified that he went to the building owned by Mr. Garcia to investigate a tip about a prostitution house that was being conducted out of an unspecified apartment located on the second floor of the building owned by Mr. Garcia. When the police questioned Mr.

Garcia about the alleged prostitution house, Mr. Garcia told him that he did not know anything about it, but gave the officers After the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, the defendant pled guilty to the charges while expressly reserving his right to appeal that ruling. 2
1

permission

to

go

upstairs

to

look

around.

When

the

police

entered the interior hallway, the defendant opened the door to his apartment, asking Detective Mead, "What's up?" As Detective

Mead was in the hallway speaking to the defendant, he observed a small refrigerator that was in the apartment. The refrigerator,

which was approximately four feet away from Detective Mead, had items on top of it which Detective Mead recognized as being cocaine and nickel bags of rock cocaine. Mead was standing, he could not see From where Detective the entire apartment,

including the inside of the bathroom. defendant to step outside because he

Detective Mead asked the was concerned for his

safety and feared that the cocaine would be destroyed if someone else was in the apartment. Detective Mead entered the apartment

while other officers stayed outside in the hallway with the defendant, who was handcuffed and wearing only a shirt and boxer shorts. While in the apartment, Detective Mead seized the

cocaine, and he observed in plain view several tin containers and a scale, which appeared to have cocaine residue on them, and firearms. Detective Mead exited the apartment and asked the The defendant drugs in the

defendant if there were any more drugs inside. told Detective Mead that there were no other

apartment, and then asked Detective Mead to retrieve a pair of pants and a pair of shoes for him. Officer Mead retrieved the

pants and shoes from the defendant's apartment as requested. As

3

the defendant was attempting to put his clothes on, he told Detective Mead that he was having trouble with one of the shoes because it had marijuana in it. The defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he did not give Detective Mead permission to initially enter the apartment, but did give him permission to enter his apartment to retrieve his pants and shoes. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, making the following oral findings: Mr. Garcia, the owner of the building,

gave Detective Mead permission to enter the upstairs hallway; the defendant voluntarily opened the door to his apartment; the cocaine was in plain view; 2 it was apparent to Detective Mead that the items were crack cocaine; Detective Mead had probable cause to arrest the defendant upon seeing the cocaine; there was a heightened concern for safety because narcotics were involved; there were exigent circumstances because someone else could have

2

The cocaine was in "open view," not "plain view" because Detective Mead was outside of a constitutionally protected area, the hallway, and was looking inside of a constitutionally protected area, the defendant's apartment, when he observed the contraband. Murphy v. State, 898 So. 2d 1031, 1033-34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)("In the plain-view situation, the officer has a constitutional right to be in the place where the seizure is made. In an open-view situation, the officer sees the contraband from a place he or she has a right to be, outside a constitutionally protected area, but may not have constitutional access to the place the contraband is located when seized. In such cases, there must be a Fourth Amendment exception, such as exigent circumstances, to justify the warrantless entry and seizure.")(footnote omitted). 4

been

in

the

apartment;

when

Detective

Mead

looked

into

the

bathroom, he did so for his own safety; and the firearms were in plain view in the bathroom. A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress represents a mixed question of law and fact. (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). sustained evidence. if they Butler v. State, 706 So. 2d 100

A trial court's factual findings must be are supported by substantial, competent

However, a trial court's legal rulings are subject to See Murphy v. State, 898 So. 2d 1031, 1033

de novo review.

(Fla. 5th DCA 2005)("A ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court as presumptively correct as to disputed

facts and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn from them. facts However, the trial court's application of the law to the is reviewed under the de novo standard.")(citations

omitted); Williams v. State, 769 So. 2d 404, 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(holding that an appellate court "will not reverse a trial court's findings of fact where the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence," however, the trial court's

application of the law to those findings of fact is subject to de novo review). In this appeal, the defendant claims that there was

insufficient evidence presented at the suppression hearing to support the trial court's finding that Mr. Garcia had the

authority to grant Detective Mead permission to enter the second

5

floor hallway. In the

We disagree. to suppress filed by the defendant, he

motion

concedes that Mr. Garcia was the owner of the entire building, including the apartments located on the second floor. As the

defendant conceded Mr. Garcia's ownership of the building, the State did not have to prove Mr. Garcia's authority to grant permission to law enforcement to enter the common areas of the second floor. The defendant also challenges the trial court's finding of fact that it was immediately apparent to Detective Mead that the items on the refrigerator were crack cocaine. Detective Mead

testified that he has been a police officer for approximately seventeen years, and that since 1997, he has been exposed to crack cocaine almost daily and that he has identified crack cocaine hundreds of times. Moreover, Detective Mead testified

that based on his experience, years of training, almost daily exposure to crack cocaine, and the short distance between him and the refrigerator (only four feet), he immediately recognized that the items on the top of the refrigerator were nickel bags of crack cocaine. As the trial court's finding was clearly

supported by substantial, competent evidence, we must sustain the trial court's finding of fact that it was immediately

apparent to Detective Mead that the items on the top of the refrigerator were crack cocaine.

6

While the officer observed cocaine on the refrigerator in open view, "there must be a Fourth Amendment exception, such as exigent circumstances, to justify the warrantless entry and

seizure." record

Murphy, 898 So. 2d at 1034. the trial court's

As we conclude that the conclusion that exigent

supports

circumstances existed, we find no fault with the trial court's finding that the warrantless entry and seizure of the cocaine was lawful. Once apartment, Detective based on Mead the was legally in the defendant's he properly

exigent

circumstances,

seized the drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and firearms that were in plain view. 1994)(holding See Turner v. State, 645 So. 2d 444, 447 (Fla. that once a police officer is legally inside

defendant's private dwelling, he could seize evidence in plain view). As we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress, we affirm his convictions and sentences. Affirmed.

7

Download 05-0939 STATE V. CARTWRIGHT.pdf