Casillas v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-2182 |
| Citation | 190 N.E.3d 1005 |
| Parties | Leon CASILLAS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Yvette M. LaPlante, LaPlante LLP, Evansville, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Catherine E. Brizzi, Steven J. Hosler, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Leon Casillas appeals following his convictions of Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug1 and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine,2 and the finding that he is a habitual offender.3 Casillas raises one issue on appeal, which we revise and restate as:
1. Whether officers violated Casillas's rights under both the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution by entering his home without a warrant.
The State, in turn, raises a second issue:
2. Whether Casillas waived his challenge to the admission of evidence by failing to object at trial.
We affirm.
[2] After sunset on February 12, 2020, Detective Brandon Garland, who serves as both a detective with the Washington Indiana Police Department and a member of the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") Task Force serving the Evansville area, and Detective James Budde, who is a detective with the Vanderburgh County Sheriff's Office and a member of the DEA Task Force, obtained information that an individual was possibly selling heroin out of a house on Tenth Avenue in Evansville. Detective Garland and Detective Budde decided to conduct a "knock and talk,"5 (Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 16), to try to learn more about the activities occurring inside the residence.
[3] Casillas answered the door and conversed with Detective Garland and Detective Budde. The detectives were wearing plain clothes and protective vests identifying them as law enforcement personnel. At least three other officers were near or on the porch during the encounter. None of the officers utilized body-worn cameras to record this initial conversation. At some point, the officers entered Casillas's house.
[4] As soon as the officers entered Casillas's front room, they saw in plain view marijuana on a coffee table and a digital scale and suspected narcotics on a dresser. The officers recovered the suspected narcotics, conducted a protective sweep of the house, and then questioned Casillas. Detective John Montgomery of the Evansville Police Department activated his body-worn camera to record the interrogation of Casillas. An officer read Casillas his rights pursuant to Miranda ,6 and Casillas chose to speak with the officers without a lawyer present. Casillas admitted having heroin in the house. Casillas also admitted selling heroin, and he identified his supplier as "Fish." (State's Ex. 27.)
[5] The officers used the information obtained after entering Casillas's home to support their application for a search warrant, which the trial court subsequently granted. The officers ultimately found approximately eighty grams of heroin, approximately three grams of methamphetamine, syringes, suspected drug ledgers, and other items commonly associated with drug dealing inside Casillas's house. On February 14, 2020, the State charged Casillas with two counts of Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and one count of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. The State also alleged Casillas was a habitual offender.7
[6] On August 6, 2021, Casillas filed a motion to suppress in which he argued the search of his house was unconstitutional because his consent was not valid. On August 9, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Casillas's motion to suppress. At the hearing, both Detective Garland and Detective Budde testified. Detective Garland testified Casillas was hesitant to let them inside his house at first, but he then orally gave them consent to enter. Once inside, they observed marijuana in plain view. Detective Garland testified he did not recall any officer having a weapon drawn or threatening Casillas when they were on Casillas's porch. He also testified that while he asked to talk with Casillas, he did not tell Casillas that Casillas had to let him search the house. Detective Garland further testified he did not recall Casillas ever asking the officers to leave or seeking to shut his front door on the officers. Detective Garland explained he was not wearing a body camera at the time of the encounter with Casillas because he was not allowed to utilize a body camera while working as a DEA Task Force officer.
[7] Detective Budde similarly testified he did not wear a body camera during the interaction with Casillas on the porch. He explained during direct examination by the State:
(Tr. Vol. II at 18-19.) Detective Budde further testified that, when he entered Casillas's house, he observed a digital scale and what he believed were packaged narcotics. Detective Budde also testified the officers never threatened Casillas or pointed their guns at him during the interaction on the porch.
[8] Casillas testified he opened the door to his house when the officers knocked and then stepped out onto his porch. According to Casillas, one of the officers said, "we need to come in and talk to you, Mr. Casillas." (Id. at 28.) Casillas then testified that once he learned the officers did not have a warrant to arrest him or search his house, he asked them to leave. He testified one of the officers said, "this could be the difference between twenty years or a hundred years," (id. at 29), and the officers pushed their way into his house when Casillas opened the door to go back inside. On cross-examination, Casillas admitted using heroin hours before the police arrived at his house and drinking alcohol when the officers arrived. Casillas also claimed he was a drug addict who used casino winnings to support his habit. The State argued Casillas's testimony was not reliable given his admission to using heroin the day of the search, and the State pointed out the dubiousness of Casillas's claim that he financed his drug habit with casino winnings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the State met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Casillas consented to allowing officers to enter his home, and the court denied Casillas's motion to suppress.
[9] Casillas's case then proceeded to jury trial, which commenced immediately after the evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. Detective Budde testified at trial about his initial encounter with Casillas: "Initially Mr. Casillas was a little reluctant to speak with us and let us in his house but ultimately he agreed to let us step inside and talk to him." (Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 19.) Detective Budde testified he did not require Casillas to complete a consent to search form, but Detective Budde denied drawing his weapon or threatening Casillas during the encounter. In response to the State's questions about his use of a body camera, Detective Budde testified:
(Id. at 19-20.) Detective Garland did not testify at trial.
[10] At the beginning of the second day of trial and outside of the presence of the jury, the State asked the court to revisit its motion in limine prohibiting Casillas from arguing for jury nullification. The State explained, "[W]e would ask the Court to not allow argument in closing in regards to the inadmissibility of evidence or that the jury should not convict Mr. Casillas because of the illegality of the knock-and-talk." (Id. at 72.) Casillas responded:
Judge, we discussed this back in chambers and I think that my record was extremely clear at the motion to suppress hearing, especially the time of this, I mean it was the morning of the trial. I mean I would like at least the record to reflect that I disagree with the Court's ruling and want to preserve that issue of the validity of his consent to search his home and I guess really not the consent to search the home but him allowing law enforcement into the home voluntarily which led to a judicially issued warrant. So, I think as long as that, the record can reflect that that issue be preserved at this point, which I believe that it is, I wouldn't plan to make that argument and pass the decision off to the jury in my closing arguments. So, I don't have an objection to that.
(Id. ) The following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brignoni v. State
...the trial court must determine whether certain evidence is admissible based upon the testimony and evidence presented at trial. Casillas, 190 N.E.3d at 1012. However, failure to make any such specific objection relieved the trial court here of making that determination, and our appellate re......