Crews v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SOGNIER; QUILLIAN, P.J., and POPE
• Citation: Crews v. State, 316 S.E.2d 549, 170 Ga.App. 104 (Ga. App. 1984)
• Decision Date: 05 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. 66902,66902
• Parties: CREWS v. The STATE.

Page 549

316 S.E.2d 549

170 Ga.App. 104

CREWS v. The STATE.

No. 66902.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 5, 1984.

C. Theodore Lee, Villa Rica, for appellant.

Arthur E. Mallory III, Dist. Atty., for appellee.

SOGNIER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. On appeal he contends the trial court erred (1) by admitting evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure and further, that a proper chain of custody was not shown. He also contends (2) there is an incomplete record of trial, thereby denying him of his right to appeal; (3) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) that his character was improperly placed in issue by the prosecutor; and (5) that he should be released from prison because he was subjected to double jeopardy by being sentenced twice for the same offense.

1. Appellant contends it was error to admit evidence obtained as a result of an illegal seizure and an illegal arrest. He also contends that a proper chain of custody was not established prior to admission of the evidence.

In this regard the evidence disclosed that a police officer in Carrollton, Georgia, received a tip from a reliable informant that he had seen a large amount of marijuana in the trunk of appellant's car within the preceding 35 to 40 minutes, and that appellant would be driving out of town on Lovvorn Road. Appellant was stopped a short time later on that road and advised that he was suspected of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. He was also advised of his rights regarding a consent to search his car, and his right to refuse to consent to a search of his car without a warrant. Appellant then signed a written consent to search; the car trunk was opened and approximately 36 pounds of marijuana was found therein. As appellant freely and voluntarily consented to a search of his vehicle, this alone would authorize denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Guest v. State, 230 Ga. 569, 571(1a), 198 S.E.2d 158 (1973). Probable cause and a warrant are not required for a search and seizure conducted pursuant to consent. State v. Rivers, 142 Ga.App. 96, 97, 235 S.E.2d 393 (1977); Reeves v. State, 169 Ga.App. 665, 314 S.E.2d 682 (1984). Once contraband was found in appellant's car, the police were authorized to arrest appellant, as an offense was being committed in their presence. OCGA § 17-4-20(a); Lentile v. State, 136 Ga.App. 611, 612(1), 222 S.E.2d 86 (1975).

As to the chain of custody, the officer seizing the marijuana took it personally to the crime lab, delivered it to the forensic chemist, and the officer personally returned the marijuana and kept it in his possession until trial. The forensic chemist testified that the marijuana in evidence was the marijuana he had examined. Thus, no valid issue arose as to the chain of custody of the marijuana seized from appellant's car. See Johnson v. State, 143 Ga.App. 169, 170(1), 237 S.E.2d 681 (1977).

Considering all evidence relating to the search and seizure of the marijuana, it was not error to deny a motion to suppress the evidence and admit such evidence.

2. Appellant's contention that the record is not complete is not supported by the transcript, which contains a certificate from the court reporter that the transcript is a true, accurate and complete record of the proceedings in appellant's case.

3. Appellant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to the admission of evidence, elicited testimony harmful to appellant, failed to challenge the "unreliability" of evidence after its admission, and failed to request a charge regarding such evidence. Our examination of the transcript discloses that there were no valid objections to the admissibility of any evidence. Appellant consented to the search, and so testified; he made a voluntary confession to possession of the marijuana, after being advised of his rights, and so testified at trial. Appellant's trial counsel conducted thorough, relevant cross-examination of witnesses and attempted to discredit appellant's confession by showing that it was made only so two young girls with appellant would be released. In the face of the overwhelming admissible evidence against appellant, his trial counsel provided adequate, effective assistance to appellant. Although another lawyer may have conducted appellant's defense in a different way, asked different questions, made more objections, etc., the fact that trial counsel made...