Gee v. State, 584S162

• Decision Date: 26 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 584S162,584S162
• Citation: 471 N.E.2d 1115
• Parties: Clifford GEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1115

471 N.E.2d 1115

Clifford GEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 584S162.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 26, 1984.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Carolyn J. Fitch, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Lee Cloyd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Appellant-Petitioner Clifford Gee was convicted of inflicting physical injury in the commission of a robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Upon appeal to this Court his conviction was affirmed. Gee v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 28, 389 N.E.2d 303. Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Ind.R.P.C. 1, which was denied January 25, 1983. He now appeals denial of that petition.

Petitioner's sole assertion on this appeal is that his arrest was unlawful and in violation of his Constitutional rights, and as such any evidence derived from the arrest should not have been admitted at trial.

The facts as they were stated on direct appeal are as follows:

"... The crime involved the robbery of a Hallmark Card shop in which Joan Sipes, an employee of that store was beaten. The robber entered the store and said he was looking for an anniversary gift. He picked up a glass enclosed flower and brought it to the counter. Mrs. Sipes rang up the sale and as she was reaching for the wrapping paper, the man drew a metal bar about 14-18 inches long from his canvas backpack and hit her over the head. He took money from the cash drawer and put it in his pack, and took money from Mrs. Sipes' purse. He then beat her on her arms, hands and head. The robber left and she went next door for help. Muncie police officers arrived at the scene within minutes and took Mrs. Sipes to the hospital where she was admitted. After a call from an informant a search warrant was issued, police searched Gee's apartment and arrested him on August 12."

Id.

Upon execution of the search warrant, police found a metal bar, eyeglasses, knapsack, and fatigue type clothing described by eyewitnesses. Furthermore, Petitioner fitted the description given by these eyewitnesses. Petitioner was arrested promptly and taken to the police department where fingerprinting, photographing, and a trace metal test were conducted. The photograph thereafter was shown to the victim with a group of other photographs. Petitioner's photograph was later introduced at trial. At trial there was testimony that Petitioner's fingerprints, taken at the station, were the same as a fingerprint found on a glass enclosed flower which was at the Webb's card shop. There also was testimony at trial that, based upon the results of the trace metal test, Appellant had held a metal bar or a metal bar type object in both hands. Appellant argues the arrest on August 12, 1977 was unlawful because the police neither had an arrest warrant nor probable cause to arrest him at that time. Appellant claims, accordingly, the photograph, trace test, and fingerprints were all tainted and inadmissible as evidence.

As the State correctly points out, a...