Cowart v. State
Decision Date | 26 June 1984 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 706 |
Citation | 461 So.2d 21 |
Parties | Teresa Jane COWART v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Willis W. Holloway, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Patricia E. Guthrie, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence in two cases which had been consolidated for trial. In one of the cases, the jury found defendant guilty of possession of "a controlled substance, to-wit: fluorazepam" and in the other case a jury found her guilty of possessing "a controlled substance, to-wit: Marijuana." Before the consolidated trial of the two cases, they had been consolidated with three other cases against another defendant, but on motion of defendant, appellant herein, the two cases against her were severed from the three cases against another defendant. Appellant has presented no issue as to the correctness of the rulings of the court as to the consolidation of the two cases against her. We now consider the issues presented in appellant's brief in the order of their presentation.
Appellant asserts that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the results of a search of the premises by officers proceeding under a search warrant, on the ground that the search warrant was not executed by any officer empowered to execute the same in accordance with the following sections of Code of Alabama 1975:
In the brief of appellant, it is stated:
In recognizing, as appellant does by the statement quoted above, that the Mobile police officer "who had been deputized by the Sheriff before the search in question along with other Mobile police officers conducted the search" (emphasis supplied), it is to be seen that the search was in accordance with the statutory law on the subject, as held in Walden v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 426 So.2d 515, 516 (1982).
Appellant captions the second issue presented as follows:
"A search warrant may be executed by any one of the officers to whom it is directed, but by no other person except in aid of such officer at his request, he being present and acting in its execution."
The proposition stated is a verbatim recital of Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-5-7, which, of course, controls. As previously shown herein, the search warrant was directed to the Sheriff of Mobile County. As stated above, it was executed by one who had been deputized by the Mobile County Sheriff. Appellant urges in her brief that neither the deputized officer nor any other officer taking part in the search was authorized to execute the search warrant and relies for support upon Rivers v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 406 So.2d 1021, 1023 (1981), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 1023, wherein it was stated:
In Rivers, the warrant was invalid in that it was not directed to the sheriff or a constable of the county as statutorily mandated and the purported execution of the warrant was invalid in that there was no execution by anyone having statutory authority to execute the warrant. In the instant case, the issuance of the warrant was valid in that it was directed to the Mobile County Sheriff, and the execution thereof was valid in that it was executed in Mobile County by one who had been deputized by the Mobile County Sheriff.
The next issue stated by appellant is stated in appellant's brief as follows:
"For an item in plain view to be validly seized, the officer must possess some judgment at the time that the object to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClendon v. State
...reliance on Vogel to remand the cases of Jerry Leonard Cowart v. State, 488 So.2d 497 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), and Teresa Jane Cowart v. State, 461 So.2d 21 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), for proper sentencing was in error. The Cowarts, husband and wife, were both separately convicted and separately sentence......
-
Cowart v. State, 1 Div. 663
...Holloway continued as trial counsel for Teresa Jane Cowart. Teresa Jane Cowart's conviction was affirmed by this court. Cowart v. State, 461 So.2d 21 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). Appellant's first issue alleges that the trial court committed reversible error by disqualifying Holloway as attorney for ......