Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Apr 21 2009, 9:46 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JAY RODIA Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana HENRY A. FLORES, JR. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
VEON GARRISON, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0808-CR-762

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John Alt, Commissioner Cause Nos. 49G014-0705-FD-108237, 49G014-0802-FD-33509

April 21, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Veon Garrison appeals his convictions of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana, arguing the drugs should have been suppressed.1 We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 6, 2008, Detectives Michael Vitali, Patrick McCloskey, and Clifton Jones went to a residence on North Linwood Avenue in Indianapolis to execute a warrant for Garrison's arrest. Detective Vitali believed Garrison lived there because the utility bills for that address were in Garrison's name. It was actually the residence of Garrison's sister; however, she had given Garrison power of attorney, and he came to her residence regularly to check on her. He also used her garage to fix cars. When the detectives arrived at the Linwood Avenue residence, a man was in the driveway fixing a car. The man said his name was Willie Willis and Garrison was inside. Detective Jones stayed with Willis to confirm his identity, and Detectives Vitali and McCloskey approached the door. Garrison was standing in the doorway, having just shown a customer out. Detective Vitali showed his badge and said he was looking for Mr. Garrison. Garrison acknowledged that was his name, took a step back, and invited the detectives inside.

1

Under cause number 49G14-0706-FD-108237, Garrison was charged with possession of cocaine, resisting law enforcement, and possession of marijuana. On November 2, 2007, Garrison failed to appear for a hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. When executing the warrant, police found additional drugs, and Garrison was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana under cause number 49G14-0802-FD-33509. On June 30, 2008, the charges under 33509 were tried to the bench, and Garrison was found guilty of both offenses. On July 21, 2008, Garrison pled guilty to the charges under 108237 and was sentenced for his convictions under both cause numbers. Garrison filed a notice of appeal from both judgments; however, his issues on appeal relate only to the drugs supporting his convictions under 33509.

2

Once inside, Detective Vitali placed Garrison under arrest. Garrison then "became a little agitated and started shaking his head and eventually flipped his hat off." (Id. at 11.) There were two marijuana cigarettes in the cap. Garrison was wearing boots, but he wanted to wear tennis shoes instead. He asked the detectives to retrieve them from a bedroom upstairs. The detectives found the shoes near a dresser. On the dresser, in plain view, was a plate with marijuana and cocaine on it. Garrison became agitated again and told the detectives he had heart problems. The detectives called for medics to check on Garrison. When the medics arrived, Detective

Garrison said he had some heart medication in the upstairs bedroom.

McCloskey went upstairs to get it. He found a pill bottle with Garrison's name and prescription on it; however, the bottle contained cocaine and marijuana roaches. Garrison was charged with Class D felony possession of cocaine2 and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.3 At trial, the drugs were admitted over Garrison's objection. The court found Garrison guilty of both charges. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Garrison argues the drugs should not have been admitted because they were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. "A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. We will reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence only when it has been shown that the trial court abused its discretion." Ransom v. State, 741 N.E.2d 419, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citations

omitted), trans. denied 753 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 2001). We do not reweigh the evidence or
2 3

Ind. Code

Download Veon Garrison v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law