Meade v. State, 8 Div. 299
Decision Date | 29 July 1980 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 299 |
Citation | 390 So.2d 685 |
Parties | Reginald MEADE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William J. Underwood, Tuscumbia, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. T. Simonetti, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was put to trial upon an indictment which, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows:
"The Grand Jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment Reginald Meade, whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury than as stated, did on, to-wit: February 2, 1979, illegally possess cocaine contrary to and in violation of the Alabama Controlled Substance Act and that said Reginald Meade has heretofore been convicted of an offense under the Alabama Controlled Substance Act on, to-wit: December 6, 1976, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama."
Prior to arraignment appellant was found to be indigent and counsel was appointed to represent him.At arraignment, in the presence of counsel, he waived the reading of the indictment, and pleaded not guilty.
The jury found him guilty and assessed a fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollar fine against him and the trial judge sentenced him to twenty-two years in the penitentiary.He gave notice of appeal and was furnished a free transcript.Trial counsel was appointed to represent him on this appeal.
There was no motion to exclude the State's evidence; there was no request for the affirmative charge; no exceptions were reserved to the oral charge of the court; but appellant filed a motion for a new trial in which he raised the sufficiency of the evidence.No evidence was presented at the hearing on the motion for a new trial and after argument of counsel the motion was overruled and denied.
The major contention made on this appeal on which error is predicated is the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that appellant was illegally arrested.Appellant contends he filed three motions to suppress and the first motion was heard while he was in a V. A. hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.The motion was denied on May 21, 1979, by Circuit Judge Inge Johnson.Thereafter appellant through and by his attorney filed a "Motion for re-scheduling the motion for suppressing of Evidence," and alleged:
"That the attorney for defendant has been unable to locate the defendant and that he has not ascertained information concerning the whereabouts of defendant."
Judge Inge Johnson made an order on August 1, 1979, re-scheduling the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence for August 7, 1979, at 1:00 p.m.
Appellant's counsel participated in the hearing to suppress and did not move for a continuance because of the absence of his client.The record reflects that two continuances were had in this case before the case was set for trial on the merits.Honorable Robert M. Hill, Sr., Retired Circuit Judge from Florence, Alabama, was assigned to try the case.One continuance was granted at the request of appellant and the other continuance was made necessary by the conditions of the court docket.The case was reset for trial on September 24, 1979, before Judge Hill.
After the jury was selected, sworn and empaneled and two or more witnesses for the State had testified appellant's counsel made another motion to suppress the evidence and Judge Hill responded:
"
Nevertheless, Judge Hill permitted the defendant to testify as to the facts and circumstances under which he was arrested.We will summarize his testimony following the summarization of the testimony of the State's witnesses so that the evidence will be in proper sequence.
Deputy Sheriff Lanny Jackson of the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Department, assigned to the North Alabama Drug Unit, testified that, on February 2, 1979, he and other officers went to appellant's home at 227 Lewis Avenue in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, to serve an arrest warrant on appellant.He was accompanied by Investigator Jones of the Florence Police Department and Deputy Sheriff Ronnie May of Colbert County.They were both assigned to the North Alabama Drug Unit.When they arrived at appellant's home at about 10:00 a.m. on February 2, 1979, Deputy Jackson went to the back door and Officers Jones and May went to the front door.After some five or six minutes Officer Jones went to the back door and told Officer Jackson that he saw a man in bed but he couldn't get him to come to the door or the window.Jackson then removed a glass pane from the door and reached in and unlocked the door.He announced that he was with the Sheriff's Department and had arrest warrants and was entering the house.
Jackson further testified that he entered the house followed by Officer Jones.They opened the front door to let Officer May into the house.Officer Jackson remained in the kitchen area where he could watch the bedrooms to prevent anyone from coming out.From this vantage point he could see appellant lying in bed.He said appellant was hard to wake.While Officer Jones was trying to arouse appellanthe and Officer May went through the house to make sure no other person was in the house.The bedroom up the hall from the room occupied by appellant was partly open and the officers could see a plastic bag full of green plant material which appeared to be marijuana and a set of scales on a piece of plywood on the floor in plain view.After making sure appellant was the only person in the house they stopped everything and called the District Attorney's Office to secure a search warrant to search the entire house for other contraband.
Deputy Sheriff Ronnie May left the premises and appeared before the District Judge of Colbert County to secure a search warrant.The affidavit and search warrant are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Jackson v. State
...there has been an abuse of that discretion." (Citation omitted.) See also Charles v. State, 424 So.2d 715 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Meade v. State, 390 So.2d 685 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 390 So.2d 693 (Ala.1980); Hunter v. State, 338 So.2d 513 (Ala.Crim.App.1976); Cobb v. State, 50 Ala.App......
-
Smith v. Dunn
...police officer of the City of Birmingham, Alabama" rather than "any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or constable"); and Meade v. State, 390 So. 2d 685, 688, 692 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) (upholding warrant directed "[t]o Any Sheriff, Constable or Lawful Officer of the State of Alabama"). 28. Because ......
-
Bracewell v. State, 4 Div. 981
...experience or observation as to the particular subject, has acquired a knowledge beyond that of an ordinary witness." Meade v. State, 390 So.2d 685 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 390 So.2d 693 (Ala.1980), and cases cited therein. White v. State, 294 Ala. 265, 314 So.2d 857, cert. denied, 423 ......
-
Hinton v. State, CR-04-0940
...or observation as to the particular subject, [had] acquired knowledge beyond that of an ordinary witness." Meade v. State, 390 So. 2d 685, 693 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) . "Whether a witness can be covered with the expert veil depends on his acquired knowledge in a field of endeavor not venture......