Davis v. State, 03A05–1111–CR–639.

• Decision Date: 12 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 03A05–1111–CR–639.,03A05–1111–CR–639.
• Parties: Charles DAVIS, Sr., Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

977 N.E.2d 31

Charles DAVIS, Sr., Appellant–Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 03A05–1111–CR–639.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Oct. 12, 2012.

Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court 1; The Honorable Chris D. Monroe, Judge; Cause No. 03D01–1101–FA–520.

Mark Small, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Ian McLean, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MATHIAS, Judge.

Charles Davis, Sr. (“Davis”) was convicted in Bartholomew Superior Court of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and sentenced to twenty years incarceration. Davis appeals and presents eight issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence found during a search of the vehicle Davis possessed;

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of items that were destroyed;

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Davis's chain-of-custody objections to the admission of certain evidence;

IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a statement made by Davis to the police while in custody even though Davis had not been advised of his Miranda rights;

V. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in answering a question by the jury during deliberation;

VI. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Davis's conviction;

VII. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate; and

VIII. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Davis's motion to correct error wherein Davis claimed juror misconduct.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On the morning of September 16, 2010, Edinburgh Police Officer Jimmy Roberts (“Officer Roberts”) was on patrol when he saw a white Ford Escort station wagon parked in the parking lot of the Edinburgh Sports and Recreation complex. Officer Roberts saw a man, later identified as Davis, walking outside the vehicle with what appeared to be a water jug. As Officer Davis approached in his patrol car, he noticed that a female passenger was attempting to “slump” down in the seat of the car to hide herself from view. Officer Roberts then parked his patrol car, and got out to ask Davis if there was a problem. Davis replied that the car had overheated and stated that another individual had gone to an auto parts store to get spark plugs. Davis also appeared to be nervous and was pacing as he spoke to the officer. Because of Davis's behavior, and because he knew that defective spark plugs do not cause a car to overheat, Officer Roberts became suspicious of Davis. Officer Roberts radioed Davis's information to dispatch and was informed that there was an outstanding warrant for Davis's arrest. Officer Roberts then placed Davis in handcuffs and did a pat-down search on Davis. As a result of this search, Officer Roberts found a glass pipe containing a white residue.

Officer Roberts then approached the white station wagon and noticed the odor of burnt marijuana. The female passenger, later identified as Nakeesha Brantley (“Brantley”) had in her possession marijuana and syringes. Officer Roberts placed Brantley under arrest too. Edinburgh Police Chief Pat Pantke (“Chief Pantke”) arrived on the scene to assist Officer Roberts. Sometime thereafter, Edinburgh Police Officer Doyne Little (“Officer Little”) arrived to assist Chief Pantke with the search of the station wagon. Officer Roberts then began to transport Davis and Brantley to the police station. As he did so, Davis, without being questioned, told Officer Roberts that there were two “tanks” in the back of the station wagon and that “[Davis] didn't want to see anyone get hurt.” Tr. p. 312. Officer Roberts gave this information to Chief Pantke, who then summoned the clandestine laboratory team of the Indiana State Police (“ISP”).

ISP Trooper Thomas Egler (“Trooper Egler”) arrived and assisted in removing from the station wagon numerous items commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine, including air tanks modified to store anhydrous ammonia, sulfuric acid, pseudoephedrine, protective gloves, lithium batteries, tools used to pry batteries apart, scales used to measure chemicals, and scales commonly used to measure methamphetamine. Also discovered in the station wagon was a manual describing how to manufacture methamphetamine. The manual contained red underlining on parts describing how to use vitamins in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Vitamins were found in the station wagon and on Davis. The police also found inside the station wagon a baggie containing over thirteen grams of methamphetamine, a handgun, and ammunition. Three pre-paid mobile phones were also located in the car. Additionally, Davis had a large amount of cash on his person.

On January 24, 2011, the State charged Davis as follows: Count I: Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, and Count II: Class C felony possession of methamphetamine while possessing a firearm. The State subsequently amended the charging information to add Count III: Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine in a public park, Count IV: Class C felony possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and Count V: Class D felony possession of a precursor.

Prior to trial, Davis filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the station wagon, claiming that the search and seizure of the vehicle was unsupported by probable cause. The trial court denied this motion to suppress. Davis later filed a motion to suppress any evidence regarding items the ISP had destroyed. Davis also filed a motion to suppress his statement to the police. The trial court denied these motions in relevant part.

A jury trial was held on June 28 through June 30, 2011. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Davis guilty all counts except Count III: Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine in a public park. As to that count, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The trial court declared a mistrial as to Count III, and the State subsequently dismissed this count.

At a sentencing hearing held on October 18, 2011, the trial court found that Davis's convictions in Counts II, IV, and V were factually included in Count I, and entered judgment only as to this count. The trial court then sentenced Davis to twenty years on this conviction. That same day, Davis filed a pro se motion to correct error, claiming inter alia that there had been juror misconduct because one of the jurors claimed to have known the prosecuting attorney. Two days later, the trial court set Davis's motion for a hearing on November 29, 2011. The trial court entered an order denying Davis's motion the day after the hearing. Davis now appeals.

I. Search of the Station Wagon

Davis first claims that the evidence seized from the station wagon should not have been admitted at trial because the vehicle was searched without either Davis's consent or probable cause. Questions regarding the admission of evidence are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and on appeal, we review the court's decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265, 269 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). The trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. Our review of rulings for the admissibility of evidence is essentially the same regardless of whether the challenge is made through a pretrial motion to suppress or by an objection at trial. Jackson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 11, 15 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). In either case, we will not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. However, we also consider any undisputed evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Id. Additionally, we may consider foundational evidence introduced at trial in conjunction with any evidence from a suppression hearing that is not in direct conflict with the trial evidence. Kelley v. State, 825 N.E.2d 420, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.2005).

To challenge a search, a defendant must show a subjective and objective expectation of privacy in the premises. Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590, 598 (Ind.2008) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)). A driver with permission of the owner may have standing to challenge a search, even if the owner is absent. Id. (citing United States v. Rubio–Rivera, 917 F .2d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams, 714 F.2d 777, 779 n. 1 (8th Cir.1983); United States v. Portillo, 633 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir.1980)). Thus, “ ‘[w]here the defendant offers sufficient evidence indicating that he has permission of the owner to use the vehicle, the defendant plainly has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.’ “ Id. (quoting Rubio–Rivera, 917 F .2d at 1275).

Here, however, Davis was not the owner of the vehicle. Instead, the vehicle was owned by Adele Roberts, who lived in Seymour, Indiana. The owner had left the car at her father's house in Columbus, Indiana, and had spoken with Davis about selling the car to him, but no deal was reached, and she never gave Davis permission to use the car. Because Davis offered no evidence indicating that he had permission of the owner of the vehicle, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and no standing to challenge the search. Cf. id. (concluding that defendant had standing to challenge search of car he was in where the only evidence regarding ownership indicated that the car belonged to the defendant's brother and that defendant had permission to use the car and where the State presented no evidence to the contrary). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the items found by...