Gumina v. State, s. 65947
Decision Date | 11 May 1983 |
Docket Number | Nos. 65947,65948,s. 65947 |
Parties | GUMINA v. The STATE. SEARS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Linda S. Sheffield, Atlanta, for appellant (Gumina).
William D. Smith, Atlanta, for appellant (Sears).
W. Bryant Huff, Dist. Atty., Genevieve L. Frazier, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendants Antonia Gumina and William Sears appeal their convictions for violation of the Controlled Substances Act by possessing LSD, cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute. Held:
1. The evidence showed that defendants rented premises from an owner who lived on contiguous property in a house some distance away. The premises rented consisted of a main residence, a smaller house trailer and three cargo trailers, all surrounded by a chain link fence. When the premises were searched pursuant to a search warrant, Sears, Gumina and her three small children, and four other adults were there. LSD, cocaine, marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found in the main residence, most of the drugs in the master bedroom, which was Sears' and Gumina's bedroom. Numerous guns, most of them loaded, were also discovered. A police officer testified that when he showed Gumina a large quantity of marijuana found in her bedroom closet, she took some cocaine from a dresser drawer and told the officer that it was hers. A frisk search of Sears produced a glass vial with cocaine residue. Defendants testified that the other four adults were known to Sears' brother and were permitted to stay on the premises for a few days, which had extended to three weeks at the time of the search. They testified that they let the four visitors sleep in the main residence while they slept in the smaller house trailer. The defendants denied any knowledge of any drugs on the premises and implied that the drugs found there must have been brought there by others. None of the other four adults were apparently available to testify.
Defendants made motions for directed verdicts of acquittal on the grounds that the evidence showed that others had equal access to the premises, denial of which is asserted as error. We find no error.
Burdett v. State, 159 Ga.App. 394(3), 395, 283 S.E.2d 622.
Teems v. State, 161 Ga.App. 339(3), 340-1, 287 S.E.2d 774.
Moreover, Ramsey v. State, 165 Ga.App. 854(6), 303 S.E.2d 32 (1983).
2. Defendants' allegation that the search warrant was insufficient to describe the premises to be searched, and that the executing officers exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching persons and places not described in the warrant, is not meritorious.
The description given in the warrant was: The affidavit attached to the warrant contained the same description except the number of the premises is given as 5225 Poplar. One of the officers who conducted the search testified that he had no difficulty in finding the premises described because he knew where it was before he met the affiant to the affidavit. Another had identified the premises from an airplane prior to the search.
When the officers arrived at 5225 Poplar Street in Buford, they found a fenced area secured by a gate. Inside the fence was a larger building which was clearly a residence, and four trailers, one of which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Dunn, 85-998
...as garages, barns, sheds, smokehouses) because such buildings are commonly deemed within the curtilage. See Gumina v. State, 166 Ga.App. 592, 595, 305 S.E.2d 37, 39 (1983) ("[E]ven if the [trailers] had not been described at all [in the warrant], the officers would have been authorized to s......
-
Amica v. the State.
...666 S.E.2d 468. 20. (Punctuation omitted.) Franks v. State, 240 Ga.App. 685, 688(3), 524 S.E.2d 545 (1999). 21. Gumina v. State, 166 Ga.App. 592, 594(2), 305 S.E.2d 37 (1983). See Anderson v. State, 249 Ga. 132, 135–136(5), 287 S.E.2d 195 (1982) (search warrant sufficiently described the sp......
-
Bonds v. State
...1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). That is, it was an authorized protective search for weapons. See also Gumina v. State, 166 Ga.App. 592, 595, 305 S.E.2d 37 (1983) regarding the applicability of OCGA § 17-5-28 and the search for weapons. As repeated and discussed in Michigan v. Long,......
-
Thomas v. State
...certainty, and without depending upon his discretion." Chambless, 165 Ga.App. at 195(1), 300 S.E.2d 201. See also Gumina v. State, 166 Ga.App. 592, 594, 305 S.E.2d 37 (1983). But, in the instant case, the warrant contained no other descriptive information about the property or the occupant,......