Bradley v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A05–1404–CR–181.,49A05–1404–CR–181. |
| Parties | Timmie BRADLEY, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Valerie K. Boots, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Jodi Kathryn Stein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
, Judge.
[1] In December of 2012, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) received an anonymous complaint alleging that drug dealing was occurring at a home in Indianapolis. Detectives with the IMPD placed the home in question under surveillance. After conducting surveillance on a number of occasions, the detectives approached the home, identified themselves, and requested permission to enter the home. After being granted consensual entry into the home, the detectives became concerned for their safety and conducted a protective sweep of the kitchen and an adjacent bedroom. During this protective sweep, the detectives observed a very small amount of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in plain sight in the kitchen. The occupants of the home were brought into the living room of the home. Because the occupants' arms were not restrained, the detectives looked under couch cushions before allowing the occupants to sit on the couch. A handgun was discovered under the cushions.
[2] A short time later, Appellant–Defendant Timmie Bradley used a key to let himself into the home. Bradley, who had his hand in his left pocket, did not comply with the detectives' orders to remove his hand from his pocket. Bradley was subsequently searched because of the detectives' concern for their safety after observing drug paraphernalia and a handgun in the home. The detectives found approximately thirty grams of cocaine and a large amount of United States currency on Bradley's person.
[3] Appellee–Plaintiff the State of Indiana subsequently charged Bradley with numerous offenses, including Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class C felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, Class C felony possession of cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Bradley guilty of each of the above-stated offenses. The trial court sentenced Bradley to an aggregate thirty-five-year term of incarceration.
[4] On appeal, Bradley contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence at trial; his convictions for Class C felony possession of cocaine and a firearm and Class C felony possession of cocaine violate the prohibitions against double jeopardy; and the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for Class A felony possession of cocaine, Class C felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Upon review, we conclude that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence at trial, (2) Bradley's convictions for Class C felony possession of cocaine and a handgun and Class C felony possession of cocaine violated the prohibitions against double jeopardy and therefore must be vacated, (3) the evidence is sufficient to sustain Bradley's conviction for Class A felony possession of cocaine, and (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain Bradley's conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court with instructions.
[5] In December of 2012, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Detective Scott Campbell received an anonymous complaint alleging that drug dealing was occurring at a home located at 2207 North Alabama Street. Between receiving the anonymous complaint and January 14, 2013, Detective Campbell and Detective Simmea McCoy conducted surveillance at the home on three or four occasions. On one such occasion, Detectives Campbell and McCoy observed, within a short period of time, heavy foot traffic in and out of the home with the visitors “going inside, staying for [a] very short amount of time and leaving.” Tr. p. 37. In their experience as law enforcement officers, Detectives Campbell and McCoy knew that such activity was indicative of the sale of drugs.
[6] On another occasion, Detectives Campbell and McCoy observed Bradley drive a blue pickup truck to the home, approach the home, and enter it. That same day, Detectives Campbell and McCoy observed another individual, who was subsequently identified as Bryant Beatty, drive a blue minivan to the home, approach the home, and enter it. A search for the identity of the lessor of the home was unsuccessful.
[7] On the afternoon of January 15, 2013, Detectives Campbell and McCoy, along with Detective Tracy Lomax (collectively, “the Detectives”), conducted surveillance at the home. At approximately 3:00 p.m., the Detectives observed Beatty pull up at the home in a blue minivan. This was the second time Detectives Campbell and McCoy had observed Beatty arrive at the home driving the blue minivan during the course of their investigation. The Detectives further observed Beatty approach the home. Beatty knocked on the front door and, soon thereafter, someone inside the home opened the door to allow him to enter.
[8] After watching Beatty enter the home, the Detectives, all of whom were wearing plain clothes but were wearing lanyards with their police badges displayed and possibly police vests, decided to conduct a “knock and talk.” Tr. p. 103. When the Detectives approached the home, Detective Campbell immediately detected the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the home. With Detective Lomax standing at the far end of the porch and Detective Campbell standing nearby, Detective McCoy knocked on the front door. When Beatty opened the front door a short time later, Detectives McCoy and Lomax also detected the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the home.
[9] After Beatty opened the front door, Detective McCoy identified himself and Detectives Campbell and Lomax and explained that they had come to the home because of a narcotics complaint. Detective McCoy requested permission for himself and Detectives Campbell and Lomax to step inside the home and speak with Beatty. Beatty responded yes and stepped to the side to allow the Detectives to enter the home.
[10] Upon entering the home, the Detectives were standing in a living room. They observed a closed bedroom door with music coming from inside the bedroom. Detective McCoy asked Beatty if there was anyone else in the home. Beatty responded that there was not.
[11] Within seconds of Beatty indicating that there was no one else in the home, the Detectives observed a black male “peak [sic]” his head around the kitchen corner. Tr. p. 152. The black male retreated after seeing the Detectives. Because the Detectives could not see into the kitchen, Detective McCoy ordered the individual in the kitchen to come into the living room. The individual did not comply with Detective McCoy's order.
[12] After the individual in the kitchen failed to comply with Detective McCoy's order, Detectives McCoy and Lomax, out of concern for their and Detective Campbell's safety, conducted a protective sweep of the kitchen. While in the kitchen, Detectives McCoy and Lomax observed several items sitting on a counter in plain view: a set of digital scales, a “very small amount of cocaine,” a glass jar with white residue on the bottom, and baking soda which can be used as a cutting agent. Tr. p. 181. Also while in the kitchen, Detectives McCoy and Lomax encountered a man, who was subsequently identified as Cortez Bradley. Detectives McCoy and Lomax brought Cortez into the living room along with a third black male who had been in the adjacent bedroom.
[13] The Detectives detained Beatty, Cortez, and the other individual in the living room and advised them of their Miranda1 rights. The Detectives decided to sit the three men down on a couch in the living room while they completed their investigation. Although the three men were not free to leave, their hands were not restrained at this time. Prior to sitting the men down on the couch, out of concern for officer safety, Detective Campbell conducted a quick search of the couch for weapons by lifting the cushions. During this quick search, Detective Campbell found a small handgun under one of the cushions. The Detectives then loosely handcuffed the three men together and sat them on the floor. All three men denied both living at the home and knowing who did.
[14] A short time later, Bradley pulled up to the home, driving a blue pickup truck. Bradley approached the home and opened the front door with a key. The Detectives immediately identified themselves when Bradley entered the home.
[15] Upon entering the home, Bradley's left hand was in his coat pocket. The Detectives ordered Bradley to remove his hand from his pocket. Bradley did not comply with this order but rather moved his hand around in his pocket. When Bradley failed to comply with their order, Detectives Campbell and McCoy “took him down to the ground.” Tr. p. 63. The Detectives then observed a baggie containing a large quantity of cocaine sticking out of Bradley's coat pocket. Detective Lomax then conducted a search of Bradley's person, during which he recovered the baggie containing the large amount of cocaine, “a large amount of U.S. currency,” and a small amount of cocaine from Bradley's pant coin pocket. Tr. p. 94. The baggie containing the large amount of cocaine was later determined to contain approximately thirty grams of cocaine, which has a street value of approximately $1100 to $1200. Detective McCoy indicated that in his experience as a law enforcement officer, such a large quantity of cocaine was indicative of dealing rather than personal use, especially when combined with the digital scales, baking soda, and glass jar recovered from the kitchen; the handgun; and the large quantity of United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. State, 49S05–1602–CR–83.
...A felony cocaine conviction, but vacated the other three convictions, on double jeopardy and sufficiency grounds. Bradley v. State, 44 N.E.3d 7, 26 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), vacated. The court upheld the police entry into Bradley's home and the protective search as being constitutional under both ......