Edgerton v. State, A99A0024.

Decision Date28 April 1999
Docket NumberNo. A99A0024.,A99A0024.
Citation516 S.E.2d 830,237 Ga. App. 786
PartiesEDGERTON v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Steven M. Frey, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Todd E. Naugle, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

BARNES, Judge.

After marijuana and cocaine were found during a search of his car, Joseph Limuel Edgerton was indicted for possession of more than an ounce of marijuana and possession of more than twenty-eight grams of a mixture with a purity of more than ten percent cocaine. Later, he filed a motion to suppress evidence of the drugs contending they were seized during an illegal search. When this motion was denied, Edgerton waived his right to a jury trial and during a bench trial stipulated to sufficient facts for the trial court to find him guilty of the offenses for which he was indicted.

Based upon the evidence presented during the hearing on Edgerton's motion to suppress, the trial court found that the officers had probable cause to search Edgerton's car under the totality of the circumstances, including the information provided by the informant and the existing, exigent circumstances. On appeal Edgerton contends the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the marijuana and cocaine seized during an illegal search. We disagree and affirm.

When an appellate court reviews a trial court's order concerning a motion to suppress evidence, the appellate court should be guided by three principles with regard to the interpretation of the trial court's judgment of the facts. First, when a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that judge sits as the trier of facts. The trial judge hears the evidence, and his findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it.
Second, the trial court's decision with regard to the questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Third, the reviewing court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment.

(Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 54(1), 440 S.E.2d 646 (1994). Nevertheless when, as in this case, the evidence concerning a motion to suppress is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo review. Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 320(1), 443 S.E.2d 474 (1994).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings and judgment, the evidence shows an informant told a Fayette County Deputy Sheriff that Joe, a black male, would be driving a dark blue Ford Escort with five-spoke wheel rims, tinted windows, and a dark license tag cover into Clayton County on Georgia Highway 85 from Clark Howell Road at approximately 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. that day, going to Laurel Park Apartments. The informant further stated the driver would be armed and in possession of a large amount of cocaine and that he saw Edgerton with drugs at an earlier time.

The deputy testified that this informant had never provided any information in the past, was a suspect in a criminal investigation, and the deputy knew him in connection with that arrest and had interviewed him before. The Fayette County deputy reported this information to the Sheriff's Department of Clayton County, and it was the basis for the traffic stop.

A Clayton County Deputy Sheriff testified that he was called by the county narcotics undercover unit to stop the car for them and that he was given certain information about the car he was to pull over. He was told the subject's name, the type of vehicle he would be driving, and the tag number. He was also told that the driver would be transporting narcotics down Highway 85 toward the Riverdale area and had been armed in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Wesson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 1999
  • Sanders v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2001
    ...and to reduce the time involved in resolving cases and are routinely utilized. See, e.g., Barnett v. State;17Smith v. State;18 Edgerton v. State;19Miller v. State;20Furfano v. State.21 Defendants often stipulate to bench trials, appealing only the issue of the trial court's refusal to suppr......
  • Clemons v. State, A02A1298.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2002
    ...corroborated by police observation. See Robertson, supra at 70, 510 S.E.2d 914 (corroboration of facts predictive of future behavior); Edgerton v. State10 (corroboration of facts not known to general public). The contraband, found in the car that had just left Clemons's house, supported the......
  • Bain v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 2002
    ...the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment. (Citations omitted.) Edgerton v. State, 237 Ga.App. 786, 787, 516 S.E.2d 830 (1999). Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment and findings, the evidence shows that on April 20, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT