Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DONALD DWAYNE HAMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED August 17, 2006

No. 260837 Oakland Circuit Court LC Nos. 98-158731-FH; 98-157389-FH

Before: Saad, P.J., and Jansen and White, JJ. PER CURIAM. A jury convicted defendant of two counts of possession with intent to deliver 50 or more but less than 225 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii),1 and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d). The trial court sentenced defendant as a repeat controlled substance offender, MCL 333.7413(2), to consecutive prison terms of 10 to 40 years for each of the cocaine convictions, and one day in jail for the marijuana conviction. The trial court denied defendant's postjudgment motions for a new trial. This Court granted defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal, and we affirm. I. Facts On January 2, 1998, the Auburn Hills police had information that a male named "Donald," employed by the Auburn Hills Courtyard Marriott hotel, possessed a large amount of cocaine and would be picked up from work by a woman driving an unidentified car at 7:00 a.m. Auburn Hills Police Sergeant Steven Groehn positioned himself on a service drive near the hotel, and instructed Officer David Miller to patrol the area of Opdyke Road and University Drive. At about 7:00 a.m., Groehn was informed that a car being driven by a female had briefly stopped in front of the hotel. Groehn pulled adjacent to the car at a traffic light, observed the occupants, and also saw that defendant was not wearing a seatbelt. Groehn radioed Miller to stop the car. Miller testified that he saw a green Pontiac Grand Am turn onto Opdyke Road from Amy Lane, a

After the charged offense was committed, MCL 333.7401 was amended by 2002 PA 665 to reclassify the amounts of controlled substances. The current version of MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii) applies to amounts of 50 or more but less than 450 grams of a controlled substance.

1

-1-


private drive, without first making a complete stop. Miller stopped the car for a traffic violation, although Groehn had also directed him to stop the car. Defendant was the front seat passenger in the car, a woman was driving, and another individual was in the rear seat. Miller spoke with the driver, while Groehn questioned defendant and ultimately asked him to get out of the car. Groehn indicated that, after defendant exited the car, he attempted to flee and a struggle ensued between himself and defendant. Miller observed defendant and Groehn wrestling, so he and Officer Jeffrey Walker assisted Groehn in restraining and then arresting defendant for assaulting a police officer. Walker searched defendant, felt a large hard object in defendant's coat pocket, thought it was a gun, and yelled his belief to Miller. Defendant then stated, "[N]o, you got me, it's just a big bag of dope not a gun." The police seized a large bag of cocaine from defendant's coat pocket, two additional bags of cocaine and $1,296 from defendant's pants pockets, a digital scale with white residue on it from the floorboard of the front passenger seat, a cellular telephone, and a pager. In total, the three bags contained 104.90 grams of cocaine. After defendant's arrest, Groehn contacted Pontiac Police Officers James Martinez and Robert Miller. Martinez testified that Groehn advised him that defendant wanted to reveal information to the Pontiac police. The Pontiac police officers met with defendant. According to the officers, defendant indicated, inter alia, that his street name was "Chill,"2 and that he had hidden a half-kilogram of cocaine, but would not reveal its location. Subsequently, the Pontiac police obtained and executed a search warrant at defendant's Waterford Township apartment, and seized approximately 75 grams of cocaine, 1.4 grams of marijuana, drug tally sheets, and approximately $4,000. In a statement to the police, defendant admitted that he had approximately three ounces of cocaine in his apartment, that he had been selling cocaine for eight years, and that he sold about a quarter of a kilogram weekly. II. Motion to Suppress Defendant argues that the stop of the car in which he was a passenger was illegal and, therefore, any evidence seized after the stop should have been suppressed. We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's factual findings on a motion to suppress for clear error, but the court's ultimate decision is reviewed de novo. People v Echavarria, 233 Mich App 356, 366; 592 NW2d 737 (1999). Clear error exists where this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. People v Parker, 230 Mich App 337, 339; 584 NW2d 336 (1998). The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DONALD DWAYNE HAMMOND.pdf

Michigan Law