Anderson v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 08 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 256 Ark. 912,511 S.W.2d 151 |
| Parties | Otis ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 74--10. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John W. Mann, Jr., Forrest City, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Michael S. Gorman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On October 31, 1972, appellant was convicted on five counts of forgery and five counts of uttering by a St. Francis County Circuit Court jury which fixed his punishment at twenty years imprisonment. He was sentenced on November 1, 1972 and committed to the Department of Corrections on November 2, 1972. He filed notice of appeal on November 29, 1972 and requested appointment of counsel, alleging that he was indigent. No action appears to have been taken on appellant's notice and motion. At some subsequent date, undisclosed by the record, Anderson filed a handwritten petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Most of the grounds alleged would have been more appropriately stated in a motion for new trial. Later, on a date likewise undisclosed by the record, an attorney who represented Anderson at his trial filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. This motion restated most of the allegations of Anderson's grounds for relief, nearly all of which were appropriate grounds for a motion for new trial, but inappropriate for post-conviction relief under Rule 1. It was alleged, however, that Anderson had been held by the Department of Corrections without due process because he had been denied counsel to prosecute his appeal, due to his indigency. On October 5, 1973, the circuit court granted the motion for an evidentiary hearing, which was held on October 22, 1973. Relief was denied, but the court granted an appeal to this court. A belated notice of appeal was filed. A transcript of the original trial which had been filed in the trial court August 22, 1973, was lodged here as a part of the record. It appears to have been considered by the trial court at the evidentiary hearing on the motion.
On appeal from that order appellant alleges that certain evidence introduced at his trial was the product of an illegal search of the vehicle he was driving at the time of his arrest and therefore inadmissible. He also contends his conviction was based on the testimony of an alleged accomplice which was not sufficiently corroborated. Because it seems from the record that Anderson was denied a direct appeal due to indigency, we consider his motion a belated motion for new trial and treat his points for reversal as having been raised on direct appeal from his judgment of conviction. We find both of the above contentions to be without merit.
Due to the mobility of the object to be searched, warrantless car searches are permissible where there exists probable cause to believe the vehicle contains articles the officers are entitled to seize. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1924); Easley v. State, 255 Ark. 25, 498 S.W.2d 664 (1973); Roach v. State, 255 Ark. 773, 503 S.W.2d 467 (1973). In this case Sgt. Dave Parkman of the Forrest City Police Department received a report that forged checks had been passed in Forrest City and a description of one of the persons suspected. Deputy Sheriff Joe Goff of the St. Francis County Sheriff's Department testified he received a report from Officer Parkman that the latter had just met and passed a green 1970 or 1971 Oldsmobile containing a person believed to be the suspect traveling north on Washington Avenue a few cars behind Deputy Goff. Goff slowed down and an automobile fitting the description he had received passed him. He followed the car for a short distance and stopped it. He was joined almost immediately by Officer Parkman.
The two officers placed the three occupants under arrest and searched them, finding $692.00 in appellant's pocket. At this point they searched the interior of the car and recovered two checks which had been made out but not endorsed and two billfolds containing Tennessee drivers' licenses in the names of Andrew Hearn and Thomas Doggett. A search of the trunk of the vehicle produced several items which corresponded to items which had been purchased with the forged checks.
The person cashing the checks, which were payroll checks payable to either Andrew Hearn or Thomas Doggett, was purchasing relatively inexpensive items at several stores in the city and receiving the balance of the amount of the checks in cash.
We conclude that the officers had probable cause for searching the vehicle. Officer Parkman, having received a description of one of the suspects, sighted a car carrying a person he thought to be that suspect and passed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. State
...v. State,supra; Bennett v. State, supra; Underwood v. State, supra; Lauderdale v. State, 233 Ark. 96, 343 S.W.2d 422; Anderson v. State, 256 Ark. 912, 511 S.W.2d 151; Breed v. State, 198 Ark. 1004, 132 S.W.2d 386. See also, Austin v. State, 254 Ark. 496, 494 S.W.2d 472; Stout v. State,supra......
-
Medlock v. State
...given, the officer had reasonable cause to believe that an offense had been committed by the person suspected. See Anderson v. State, 256 Ark. 912, 511 S.W.2d 151 (1974) (holding that the officer, who had received a description of one of the suspects and had seen a car carrying a person he ......
-
Tillman v. State
...26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629 (1931); Perez v. State, supra; Anderson v. State, 256 Ark. 912, 511 S.W.2d 151. The officers clearly had the right to stop the vehicle. No search was attempted until Coffman arrived. When he did, he reco......
-
Byars v. State
...where contraband is not involved, we have sustained warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause. See Anderson v. State, 256 Ark. 912, 511 S.W.2d 151; Roach v. State, 255 Ark. 773, 503 S.W.2d 467; Cox v. State, 254 Ark. 1, 491 S.W.2d 802; Moore v. State, 244 Ark. 1197, 429 S.......