Mantooth v. State

Decision Date14 March 2012
Docket NumberNo. 24A01-1108-CR-382,24A01-1108-CR-382
PartiesJESSICA E. MANTOOTH, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

JESSICA E. MANTOOTH, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 24A01-1108-CR-382

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dated: March 14, 2012


Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:

EUGENE C. HOLLANDER
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana

MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable J. Steven Cox, Judge
Cause No. 24C01-1010-FA-58

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RILEY, Judge

Page 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant-Defendant, Jessica E. Mantooth (Mantooth), appeals her conviction for Count I, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deal, a Class A felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(b); Count III, neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a)(1); Count IV, possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1); and Count V, driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 9-24-19-2.

We affirm.

ISSUES

Mantooth raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence obtained as a result of a canine exterior sniff of Mantooth's vehicle; and
(2) Whether the State produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed possession of methamphetamine with intent to deal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 12, 2010, Mantooth drove her boyfriend, Paul Kinnaman (Kinnaman), from Indianapolis to Brookville so that he could meet with his parole officer and pay his child support obligation. Mantooth borrowed a vehicle from a friend for the trip and brought along her four-year-old daughter, J.M., who sat in the back seat. At approximately 11:00 a.m., Indiana State Trooper Barry Bischoff (Trooper Bischoff), a k-9 officer, began following Mantooth. Trooper Bischoff was able to see that there was a

Page 3

lot of commotion inside the vehicle Mantooth was driving, and he observed the vehicle drift left of center three times. After the third time, Trooper Bischoff initiated a traffic stop. When he asked Mantooth for her driver's license and registration, he noticed that she was shaking uncontrollably and that her voice was raspy. Mantooth searched her purse for her driver's license but was unable to find it. Trooper Bischoff then obtained information from both Mantooth and Kinnaman, who handed him a state ID.

At that time, Indiana State Trooper Jeremy Franklin (Trooper Franklin) arrived on the scene. The Troopers ran Mantooth's information and discovered that her license had been suspended. Trooper Franklin wrote Mantooth a citation while Trooper Bischoff walked his canine, Gaston, around the vehicle for an open air sniff. After Gaston alerted at the driver's side door, the Troopers searched the interior of the vehicle. Trooper Bischoff noticed that there was a "flap" on the middle console, so he lifted the flap and it came right off. (Transcript p. 22). Inside, he found a blue pouch containing a glass smoking pipe and empty baggies, as well as digital scales and three baggies filled with a crystal substance. The substance was later identified as approximately five and a half grams of methamphetamine. The troopers also found a stick of women's deodorant with no cap on it in the console. Inside of Mantooth's purse, which was sitting on the backseat, the Troopers discovered a deodorant cap that matched the deodorant stick they had found inside the console.

The Troopers arrested Mantooth and Kinnaman and took them to jail. There, the Troopers discovered that Mantooth had $351 on her, and Kinnaman had $507 dollars on

Page 4

him. Mantooth also admitted that she had used methamphetamine a few days before the incident.

Because of Mantooth and Kinnaman's arrest, the Troopers also called child protective services (CPS) to take care of J.M. CPS placed J.M. with Mantooth's grandparents and tested J.M. for methamphetamine. The results were positive and indicated a "high" amount of methamphetamine in her system. (Tr. p. 50).

On October 14, 2010, the State filed an Information charging Mantooth with Count I, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deal, a Class A felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(b); Count II, possession of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(a); Count III, neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a)(1); Count IV, possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1); and Count V, driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 9-24-19-2. On June 6-8, 2011, a jury trial was held. At trial, Mantooth admitted that the deodorant the Troopers had found in the center console was hers, although she asserted that Kinnaman had taken it out of her bag and put it in the console. Mantooth claimed to have otherwise never seen any of the other items that the Troopers found in the console.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Mantooth guilty as charged. On July 20, 2011, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and found that Count II merged into Count I. The trial court subsequently sentenced Mantooth to 42 years on Count I, with 12 years suspended, 3 years on Count III, 365 days on Count IV, and 365 days on

Page 5

Count V. It ordered Counts III, IV, and V to be served concurrently but consecutive to Mantooth's sentence on Count I.

Mantooth now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION

I. Canine Search

First, Mantooth argues that the State did not provide adequate evidence that Officer Bischoff's canine, Gaston, was certified, so there was no probable cause for the Troopers to search her vehicle. By extension, Mantooth asserts that the trial court should not have admitted the evidence the Troopers found in her vehicle because it was found pursuant to an illegal search.

Preliminarily, we note that the admission or exclusion of evidence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination regarding the admissibility of evidence is therefore reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Alsheik v. Guerrero, 956 N.E.2d 1115, 1128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh'g denied. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic of the facts and circumstances before the court. Troutner v. State, 951 N.E.2d 603, 611 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Mantooth raises this issue on two grounds—the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. We will address each ground...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT