Bolden v. State
Decision Date | 18 September 2015 |
Docket Number | CR–14–0657. |
Citation | 205 So.3d 739 |
Parties | Richard Lamar BOLDEN v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Special writings of Judge Joiner and Judge Welch substituted on denial of rehearing Dec. 18, 2015.
Certiorari Denied April 22, 2016
Alabama Supreme Court 1150333.
Rebecca Denean McCorkel, Dothan, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Yvonne A.H. Saxon, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Richard Lamar Bolden, was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, a violation of § 13A–12–231, Ala.Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced Bolden as a habitual felony offender with one prior felony conviction to life imprisonment. The circuit court ordered Bolden to pay a $25,000 fine; $10,000 to the crime victims compensation fund; a drug-demand-reduction fee of $2,000; a $200 fee to the Forensic Science Trust Fund; and court costs.
Bolden does not challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary in this case. Bolden was convicted of trafficking in marijuana based on evidence seized from a search of a residence on Eddins Road. Before trial, Bolden moved to suppress evidence seized from the Eddins Road residence, and the circuit court held a suppression hearing. Bolden argued that the affidavit for a search warrant provided "no basis for Judge Mendheim to reasonably conclude that any criminal activity was likely occurring" at that time and that no probable-cause determination could have been made. (C. 62.) At the suppression hearing, the circuit court relied on the following evidence.
Officer Ray Mock, a police officer with the Dothan Police Department, testified that he obtained a search warrant based on information gathered from a two-day investigation. On August 12, 2011, Officer Mock executed a search warrant for a residence on Bruce Street and discovered a large quantity of cocaine and marijuana, over $1,500 in cash, and a pistol. Bolden's live-in girlfriend was arrested at the scene. Although Bolden was not arrested at that time, officers obtained an arrest warrant for him. Officers began conducting surveillance on the Eddins Road residence after learning that it was Bolden's second residence.
On August 11, 2011, Officer Mock received information that Bolden was seen driving a green Chevrolet Impala automobile. Officer Mock also learned that Bolden possessed a high-capacity assault rifle; he testified that he learned this information within 24 hours of obtaining the search warrant. On that day, Jason Adkins, a sergeant with the Dothan Police Department, was conducting surveillance on the Eddins Road residence and observed a green Chevrolet Impala arrive at the residence followed by a black Ford Focus automobile. Later, Bolden and the driver of the Ford Focus, Shawnda Owens, exited the residence and left in the black Ford Focus. Officers performed a traffic stop and arrested Bolden. No drugs or weapons were found during a search of the vehicle and its passengers.
After Bolden was arrested, Officer Mock submitted an affidavit and application for a search warrant of the Eddins Road residence. The affidavit stated that Officer Mock believed that there was illegal drug activity and weapons at the Eddins Road residence. Officer Mock supported this contention with the following information:
(C. 73–74.)
The circuit court granted the search warrant of the Eddins Road residence. In a search of the Eddins Road residence, officers discovered approximately two and a half pounds of marijuana.
Following Officer Mock's testimony at the suppression hearing, the circuit court denied Bolden's motion to suppress. Bolden was subsequently tried and convicted of trafficking in marijuana. This appeal followed.
Bolden's sole contention on appeal is that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Specifically, Bolden argues that "the affidavit underlying the search warrant was constitutionally deficient on the grounds that it did not include information that specified when the confidential informant learned the information that he/she reported to Officer Ray Mock with the Dothan Police Department." (Bolden's brief, p. 14.)
In State v. Landrum, 18 So.3d 424 (Ala.Crim.App.2009), this Court explained:
"
Because the evidence presented at the suppression hearing is not in dispute, the only issue before this Court is whether the circuit court correctly applied the law to the facts presented at the suppression hearing, and we afford no presumption in favor of the circuit court's ruling.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Earl v. State
... ... Cf. Bolden v. State , 205 So. 3d 739 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (upholding warrant when the affidavit submitted to the issuing judge included information about the officer's knowledge that drug traffickers commonly keep their drugs at different residences). 6 309 So.3d 655 Because there was insufficient ... ...
-
Webb v. State
... ... identification of Webb as the "peeping Tom." And ... "[a]n issuing judge's determination that sufficient ... probable cause existed to support the warrant is ... 'entitled to great deference and is conclusive in the ... absence of arbitrariness.'" Bolden v ... State, 205 So.3d 739, 742 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (quoting ... Wamble v. State , 593 So.2d 109, 110 ... (Ala.Crim.App.1991), (quoting in turn United States v ... Pike , 523 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1975), cert ... denied , 426 U.S. 906, 96 S.Ct. 2226, 48 L.Ed.2d 830 ... ...
-
Bailey v. City of Vestavia Hills
...to the facts presented at the suppression hearing, and we afford no presumption in favor of the circuit court's ruling." Bolden v. State, 205 So.3d 739, 742 (Ala.Crim.App.2015). "Although the use of a single photograph for purposes identification raises the question of possible suggestivene......
-
Schoen v. Jurenka
... ... v. Boswell, 430 So.2d 426, 428 (Ala.1983), a trial court "has discretion to allow an amendment to a [postjudgment] motion ... to state an additional ground after thirty days from the final judgment[ ] if the original motion was timely filed and is still before the court when the ... ...