People v. Thomas, 92SA503
Decision Date | 07 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92SA503,92SA503 |
Citation | 853 P.2d 1147 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelly R. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Peter F. Michaelson, Dist. Atty., Fifth Judicial Dist., Titus D. Peterson, Deputy Dist. Atty., Breckenridge, for plaintiff-appellant.
Richard A. St. Denis, Breckenridge, for defendant-appellee.
This is the second time that this defendant has come before this court. In the first case, People v. Thomas, 839 P.2d 1174 (Colo.1992), we affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's ruling as to the admissibility of evidence--drugs, drug paraphernalia and statements--resulting from defendant Kelly R. Thomas' encounter with a police officer. Below we present an abbreviated version of the facts; a complete set of facts is set forth in the other case.
In the first appeal, we determined that the drug paraphernalia seized as a result of a pat-down search of Thomas' body was properly admissible since, as the trial court found, Thomas had given consent. We held that once that evidence was found, Thomas was in custody and was subjected to interrogation without the required Miranda 1 warnings. Thomas' subsequent consents to search the car were involuntary, and could not serve as the basis to admit his later statements and the physical evidence found by the officers. However, we recognized that the evidence found as a result of the search of Thomas' car could be admissible if a prior, valid consent were to be found. The trial court, as noted above, had found that Thomas' initial consent to search his person was valid but had not considered whether, at the same time, he also consented to the search of his car. Accordingly, we remanded the case with directions to the trial court to make findings of fact as to the existence of any such prior, valid consent to search the car.
On remand, no new evidentiary hearings were held. On the basis of the record before it, the trial court found that no valid consent to search the car had been given initially before custody was imposed. Thus, the evidence found during the car search was suppressed. This ruling resulted in the prosecution's current appeal to this court.
Two questions are presented to us by the prosecution on appeal: (1) whether the prosecution proved consent to search the car, and (2) whether the search of the car could be validated as incident to arrest. We summarily address the second of the issues first.
The question of whether the search of the car was incident to arrest was not raised at the trial court level. For that reason, it is not properly before us now, and we decline to address it. King v. People, 785 P.2d 596, 604 n. 8 (Colo.1990).
The other question is incorrectly stated by the prosecution. The essential issue is not whether the prosecution proved consent by its presentation of facts, but whether there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings of fact. Deference is given to the trial court's findings of fact and, as long as there is support for them, we will not overturn such findings. This is true even though a contrary position may find support in the record and even though we might have reached a different result had we been acting as the finder of fact. See People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Colo.1988); People v. Johnson, 653 P.2d 737, 740 (Colo.1982).
The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. McCullough, No. 99SA317.
...findings of fact and will not overturn them provided they are supported by competent evidence in the record. See People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147, 1149 (Colo.1993). An ultimate conclusion of constitutional law that is inconsistent with or unsupported by evidentiary findings, however, is subj......
-
People v. Lewis
...not sought the woman's consent, but instead, had directed the woman to open the door. 12 See O'Hearn, 931 P.2d at 1173; People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147, 1149 (Colo.1993) (noting that prosecution bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that consent to enter the premises was ......
-
People v. Kriho
...in the record and even though we might have reached a different result had we been acting as the trier of fact." People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147, 1149 (Colo.1993). Further, the determination of the credibility of the witnesses is solely within the province of the factfinder. Kogan v. People......
-
People v. Mendoza-Balderama, MENDOZA-BALDERAM
...the trial court and not the reviewing court to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. See People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147, 1149 (Colo.1993); People v. Pearson, 190 Colo. 313, 319, 546 P.2d 1259, 1263 (1976) (affirming trial court's finding of fact that consent wa......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...in the record and even though the court might have reached a different result had it been acting as the finder of fact. People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1993). Correct judgment entered for the wrong reason will be affirmed. Klipfel v. Neill, 30 Colo. App. 428, 494 P.2d 115 (1972). III......
-
Rule 35 DETERMINATION OF APPEAL.
...in the record and even though the court might have reached a different result had it been acting as the finder of fact. People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1993). Correct judgment entered for the wrong reason will be affirmed. Klipfel v. Neill, 30 Colo. App. 428, 494 P.2d 115 (1972). III......
-
Section 7 SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS.
...not properly before the court, and the court declined to address it since it was not raised at the trial court level. People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1993). People need not show that handcuffed arrestee was physically able to reach exact place searched at exact second searched. Peopl......
-
The Consent Exception to the Warrant Requirement
...1257 (Colo. 1990). 16. People v. Inman, 765 P.2d 577 (Colo. 1988); People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1993). 17. People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1993). 18. 793 P.2d 1181 (Colo. 1990). 19. People v. Reyes, 483 P.2d 1342 (Colo. 1971). 20. Supra, note 17. 21. People v. Hampton, 7......