Preview:

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WALTER MASSEY

NO. 02-KA-872 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-884, DIVISION "D" HONORABLE ROBERT M. MURPHY, JUDGE PRESIDING

FEBRUARY l1, 2003

CLARENCE E. McMANUS

JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Sol Gothard, Thomas F. Daley and Clarence E. McManus

Paul D.Connick, Jr. District Attorney Terry M. Boudreaux Alison Wallis Assistant District Attorneys Courthouse Annex Fifth Floor Gretna, Louisiana 70054 Counsel for the State
Jane L. Beebe

Post Office Box 1193 Gretna, Louisiana 70054 Counsel for appellant CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED

In this case, defendant appeals his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Officers of the Gretna Police Department received anonymous complaints

about drug transactions occurring at the donut shop, motel and grocery located at the corner of Kepler and Solon Streets in Gretna, Louisiana. Acting on this
information, Detective Russell Lloyd, Detective Scott Zemlick and another officer

set up surveillance in that area on Wednesday, January 23, 2001, at approximately 2:30 p.m. The informant told officers that the drug transactions normally occurred when a green, four-door Mercury would arrive in the area with the passenger of the
vehicle delivering the cocaine. According to Detective Lloyd, shortly after the arrival of the officers at the specified location, a green four-door Mercury automobile approached the side of the donut shop and parked. The driver of the vehicle, later identified as Stanley Tucker, exited the vehicle. The three

-2-

policemen, dressed in plain clothes, got out of their vehicle and moved toward the driver and passenger of the vehicle. The officers approached the passenger side of the vehicle and found defendant, later identified as Walter Massey, seated therein. Officer Zemlick testified at trial that they identified themselves as police officers as they approached the men. As officers neared the car, they observed defendant retrieve a black canister from his right area near his midsection and throw it over his shoulder. Apparently, small rocks of cocaine fell from the object to the back seat and floor of the vehicle. The officers placed defendant under arrest, searched him and found three rocks of cocaine in his right front pocket.

On February 20, 2001, defendant, Walter Massey, was charged by bill of
information with possession of cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C). He was

arraigned on February 21, 2001 and pled not guilty. On April 21, 2001, a motion to suppress hearing was held and the motion was denied. On May 21, 2001, defendant filed a Motion for Appointment of a Sanity Commission. On July 19, 2001, following the sanity hearing, the defendant was found competent to stand trial. On September 24, 2001, a twelve-person jury unanimously found defendant
guilty as charged. The defendant was sentenced on October 25, 2001 to five years

imprisonment at hard labor with credit for time served. Also on October 25, 2001, the State filed a multiple bill, wherein it alleged the defendant to be a fourth felony

offender under La. R.S. 15:529.l(A)(l)(c).' On November 29, 2001, following a
hearing, the defendant admitted the allegations of the multiple bill in exchange for
a negotiated multiple offender sentence of 15 years of imprisonment. The trial judge vacated defendant's original sentence and sentenced defendant as a multiple

offender to imprisonment for 15 years at hard labor with credit for time served but
without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.
Prior to amendment by 2001 La. Acts 403.

-3-

Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence.

DISCUSSION The record indicates that defendant did not file a written motion to
suppress the evidence. Although there was a suppression hearing, defendant did

not object to the ruling on the motion to suppress or to the introduction of the contraband. The trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence stating it
thought it was "a good search." Defendant argues that the basis of the police action

was based on an unsubstantiated tip by a confidential informant that did not give
police probable cause for defendant's arrest or even reasonable suspicion for a

stop. Thus, the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress the evidence. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I,
Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and

seizures. State v. Manson, 01-159, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/27/01), 791 So.2d
749, 755. Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable per se unless

justified by one of the specific exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v.
Manson, supra, (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36

L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)).
When the constitutionality of a warrantless search or seizure is placed at

issue by a motion to suppress the evidence, the State bears the burden of proving
that the search and seizure was justified pursuant to one of the exceptions to the

warrant requirement. State v. Jones, 99-972 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/29/00), 757 So.2d 110, l12. The trial judge's determination on the motion to suppress will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is clearly wrong. State v Casey, 99-0023 (La.

1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022, 1029, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S.Ct. 104, 148
L.Ed.2d 62 (2000). In reviewing the ruling on the motion to suppress, the
appellate court will look to the totality of the evidence as presented at the hearing

-4-

of the motion and the trial. State v. Wilson, 00-0178 (La. 12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1051, 1053, State v. Manson, 791 So.2d at 755.
Probable cause needed for a full custodial arrest is more than reasonable suspicion. State v. Fisher, 720 So.2d at 1183. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, based

on reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to justify a belief in a
man of ordinary caution that the person to be arrested has committed a

crime. State v. Edwards, 00-1246, p. 8 (La. 6/1/01), 787 So.2d 981, 986, n.
4.

In this case, Detective Lloyd's testimony at the suppression hearing was

uncontroverted. According to him, there were complaints of drug activity involving the donut shop at Kepler and Solon Streets. On January 23, 2001, acted on anonymous tip that indicated that a passenger in a green, four-door Mercury
automobile would be going to the donut shop to deliver cocaine. This witness and two additional officers went to the location and parked awaiting the arrival of the

green car. Shortly thereafter arriving at the location, a vehicle arrived matching the
description parked at the side of the donut shop. As the driver of the vehicle exited the Mercury, the three officers, dressed in plain clothes approached. It was at this

moment, according to Detective Lloyd, that the defendant reached toward his right
side and threw the film canister over his shoulder, spilling cocaine into the back of the car.

Similarly, in State v. Johnson, 01-2436, (La. 1/25/02), 806 So.2d 647, 648,
the subject was approached by police as the result of an anonymous tip that there was a person meeting his description who was dealing heroin. As the officers exited their vehicle and were observed to be police (although they had not identified themselves), the subject threw down a bag that contained heroin. The

-5-

Louisiana Supreme Court, in Johnson, 806 So.2d at 648, held that the seizure of
evidence was lawful. In the instant case, the facts indicate that the officers approached the subjects and the defendant discarded the contraband prior to any stop. When the defendant

discarded the contraband, without a prior intrusion on his privacy, he provided
probable cause for his arrest. Defendant's assertion that police approached the car to make the arrest is not substantiated by the record. Thus, we find the contraband discarded into the back of the vehicle were lawfully seized without a warrant and

the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress the evidence and affirm
defendant's conviction.

ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION
The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art.

920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175
(La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). The review reveals one error patent in this case as it relates to defendant's sentence as a multiple offender. The negotiated sentence of fifteen years of imprisonment at hard labor imposed after defendant admitted to being a fourth-felony offender, appears to be

illegally lenient under La. R.S.15:529.l(A)(l)(c)(ii). The record indicates that the
defendant had three prior felony convictions: (1) a second offense for possession

of marijuana, in violation of La. R.S. 40:966 on May 19, 2001; (2) a conviction for

second degree battery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.1, on April 17, 2000; and (3) a
conviction for aggravated battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34, on December 12, 1989. Defendant admitted to the allegations of the multiple bill, which stated that he was a fourth-felony offender. As a fourth-felony offender, with a prior
conviction for a violent crime, defendant was subject to a mandatory life sentence without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence under La.

-6-

R.S.15:529.l(A)(l)(c)(ii). However, neither the State nor defendant raises this
issue on appeal.

We note that in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790,
the Louisiana Supreme Court expanded our error patent review to include illegally lenient sentences. See, State v. Cox, 02-0333, p. 9 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/30/02),

So.2d __, 2002 La. LEXIS 2849. It is well established that the defendant does not
have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegal sentence. State v. Williams, 00-

1725, pp. 16-17 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 797. We note that the Louisiana
Supreme Court stated the following in State v. Campbell, 01-0329 (La. 11/2/01)

799 So.2d 1136:
The appellate court should refrain from employing errors patent review to set aside guilty pleas about which the defendant makes no complaint and which resulted in disposition of the case favorable to the defendant. Following that edict, we will not disturb defendant's sentence. Accordingly,
we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED

-7-



Download 060406FF-463A-4E0A-A764-5CFB90F44875.pdf

Louisiana Law