Huntley v. State, A00A0142.
| Decision Date | 26 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. A00A0142.,A00A0142. |
| Citation | 535 S.E.2d 270,244 Ga. App. 212 |
| Parties | HUNTLEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mitchell D. Durham, Marietta, for appellant.
Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, William M. Clark, Debra H. Bernes, Maria B. Golick, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Thomas Samuel Huntley appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. After his convictions, he was sentenced to life in prison on the trafficking charge and five years on the other charge to run concurrently with the life sentence. Contending the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress and for a new trial, Huntley appeals. For the reasons stated below, we affirm Huntley's convictions. 1. In his motion to suppress, Huntley contended the evidence seized as a result of the execution of the search warrant at his house should have been suppressed because the facts presented to the issuing magistrate did not provide sufficient information to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant. Huntley claims that the significant information to support the warrant came from an unknown informant and the information known to the authorities was not sufficient to establish that the drugs were in his home. We disagree.
At the probable cause hearing, the police officer testified that the informant had always provided reliable information. For example, the officer's affidavit as well as his testimony at the motion to suppress hearing show that the officer worked with the confidential informant for several weeks on this case, including two controlled buys, and the information provided by the informant was confirmed by actual events. The officer testified that the informant described how a person named Thomas was selling drugs on a particular road, that Thomas used a pager to set up the sales, that Thomas responded promptly to the pages, and that Thomas selected the location where the transaction would take place. The controlled buys from Huntley occurred as the informant said they would, and after the final controlled buy, the informant told the officer that he saw two plastic bags of cocaine in Huntley's car. Although no such bags were found in the car when the police stopped Huntley, officers found two plastic bags on the side of the road along Huntley's route of travel where it was likely Huntley had thrown them. The officer also testified that when Huntley was selling drugs two years earlier, drugs were found in Huntley's home when a search was conducted. When the police stopped Huntley, papers in his car provided his home address. Although the police officer did not know how the informant knew that drugs would be in Huntley's house, the informant told the officers that Huntley had more cocaine at his home.
When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, an appellate court's responsibility is to ensure that a substantial basis supported the decision. We construe the evidence most favorably to upholding the findings and judgment and adopt the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility of the witnesses unless they are clearly erroneous. Further, because the trial court is the trier of fact, its findings are analogous to a jury verdict and will not be disturbed if any evidence supports them. Morgan v. State, 195 Ga.App. 732, 735(3), 394 S.E.2d 639 (1990).
Further, when:
determining whether probable cause supported issuance of a search warrant, a totality of the circumstances test is employed. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decisionwhether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gunsby v. State, A00A2418.
...defendant and informed police). 13. Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 795(8)(b)(ii), 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983); accord Huntley v. State, 244 Ga.App. 212, 213(1), 535 S.E.2d 270 (2000). 14. Butler, supra, 192 Ga.App. at 712(1), 386 S.E.2d 371. 15. Mincey v. State, 180 Ga.App. 898, 900(1), 350 S.E.2......
-
Woodard v. State
...whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Hester v. State, 282 Ga. 239, 241(3), 647 S.E.2d 60 (2007); Huntley v. State, 244 Ga.App. 212, 214(2), 535 S.E.2d 270 (2000). Appellants contend that the trial court should have reconsidered their motion to suppress and granted their motion......
-
Davis v. State, A02A0415.
...information and showed its reliability. See Gordon v. State, 248 Ga.App. 776, 778, 546 S.E.2d 925 (2001); Huntley v. State, 244 Ga.App. 212, 213, 535 S.E.2d 270 (2000). The information in the affidavit also established a "nexus" between the DeKalb County crime and Davis's Cobb County reside......
-
Philpot v. State
...at the motion for new trial. See Gunsby v. State , 248 Ga.App. 18, 21 (2), 545 S.E.2d 56 (2001). See also Huntley v. State , 244 Ga.App. 212, 213 (2), 535 S.E.2d 270 (2000) (when new evidence comes to light during trial, the decision whether to set aside a previous order denying a motion to......