Price v. The State
| Citation | 303 Ga.App. 859,694 S.E.2d 712 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A10A0448.,A10A0448. |
| Parties | PRICEv.The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
303 Ga.App. 859
694 S.E.2d 712
PRICE
v.
The STATE.
No. A10A0448.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
April 7, 2010.
Certiorari Dismissed Oct. 4, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard A. Mallard, Dist. Atty., Brian A. Deal, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
ELLINGTON, Judge.
In August 2008, an Effingham County jury found Randy Price guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute methylenedioxymethamphetamine (hereinafter, “Ecstacy”), in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, OCGA § 16-13-20 et seq. Pursuant to the grant of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, Price appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, erred in admitting similar transaction evidence, and erred in excluding certain evidence. He also asserts that there was insufficient evidence to prove either venue or the elements of the offenses charged. Finding no error, we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,1 the record shows the following facts. In February 2006, Traci Hollingsworth contacted the Effingham County Drug Unit and reported that her husband had traded her car to individuals on Churchill Road in exchange for crack cocaine. According to one of the drug unit's officers, the Churchill Road area has been a “problem area” for crack cocaine and marijuana sales for many years. Hollingsworth told the officers that her husband had regular dealings in that area with a man with the last name of “Price.” She said that she had gone to the Churchill Road area to retrieve the car, that she saw five men selling crack cocaine, and that they refused to return the car to her. Members of the drug unit went with Hollingsworth to the Churchill Road area, where they observed the car parked between two buildings.
While an officer went to obtain a search warrant for the property, two other drug unit officers hid in the woods behind the property to watch Hollingsworth's car and observe any individuals coming and going from the buildings and elsewhere on the property. One of the officers saw Price with a shovel, doing something in the dog pen that was located at the rear of the property. The pen contained three doghouses and three pit bulls. Shortly
The officers arrived seconds later to execute the search warrant. Price put down the doghouse and tried to hide by crouching down behind some bushes five to ten feet away. The officers detained Price and, during the search of the property, they lifted up the doghouse that Price had lifted earlier and discovered a plastic bag, which contained about $3,000 in cash, several “Ecstacy” tablets, and 13.2 ounces of marijuana, as well as money scattered on the ground and a scale. The officers did not discover any contraband under the other two doghouses. They also searched the pump house and found a scale, some razor blades, and 47.45 grams of crack cocaine hidden behind a hot water heater. From the time the officers hid in the woods until the contraband was discovered, Price was the only man they observed on the property.
In addition to this evidence, the State presented similar transaction evidence showing that Price had pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of selling crack cocaine to undercover officers from the same Churchill Road property.
1. Price contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his trailer, which was located at 174 Churchill Road, and the surrounding curtilage. In his motion to suppress, Price asserted that the search was illegal because, inter alia, the search warrants authorizing the search did not include “a legally sufficient and particular description to search the premises located at 174 Churchill Road, Guyton, Effingham County, Georgia[.]”
Because the trial court sits as the trier of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress or a motion in limine, its findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to a jury verdict and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support them. When we review a trial court's decision on such motions to exclude evidence, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and we adopt the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility unless they are clearly erroneous. When the evidence is uncontroverted and no question of witness credibility is presented, the trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. With mixed questions of fact and law, the appellate court accepts the trial court's findings on disputed facts and witness credibility unless clearly erroneous, but independently applies the legal principles to the facts.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Tousley, 271 Ga.App. 874, 611 S.E.2d 139 (2005).
“No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of a technical irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.” OCGA § 17-5-31.
Although a search warrant which describes the premises by street and number will generally not authorize a search of the premises at another street or number, a search warrant that is incorrect as to street number may be valid where there are other elements of description sufficiently particular to identify the premises to be searched. The importance of exactitude of street address, it may be said, varies inversely with the thoroughness of the description.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lester v. State, 278 Ga.App. 247, 249(1), 628 S.E.2d 674 (2006).
In this case, the record shows that the officers obtained two search warrants on February 24, 2006. One of the warrants identified the property to be searched as “184 Churchill Rd. Guyton” in Effingham County. The other described the property as follows:
The residence is a white color mobile home adjacent to the address [of] 184 Churchill
Rd. The physical address is unknown as it is not clearly marked. The mobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacMaster v. State
...punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Pittman v. State , 286 Ga. App. 415, 416, 650 S.E.2d 302 (2007). See Price v. State , 303 Ga. App. 859, 861 (1), 694 S.E.2d 712 (2010).This means that the reviewing court generally must accept the trial court's findings as to disputed facts unless they ar......
-
Hogan v. State
...their duties properly and not to have exceeded their authority unless clearly proven otherwise”); accord Price v. State, 303 Ga.App. 859, 865(4)(a), 694 S.E.2d 712 (2010). But see In the Interest of B.R., 289 Ga.App. 6, 9(2), 656 S.E.2d 172 (2007) (explaining that “the investigating officer......
-
Crusselle v. The State
...testimony on cross-examination, to the effect that the National Institute of Highway Safety and Traffic Administration does not list 694 S.E.2d 712 speeding as one of the visual cues used to detect impaired drivers. We conclude that this charge is adjusted to the evidence, because the testi......
-
Hines v. State
...719 (2010) (punctuation and citation omitted); Reaves v. State, 284 Ga. 181, 187–188, 664 S.E.2d 211 (2008) ; Price v. State, 303 Ga.App. 859, 862, 694 S.E.2d 712 (2010) ; Felix v. State, 234 Ga.App. 509, 511, 507 S.E.2d 172 (1998), vacated on other grounds, 271 Ga. 534, 523 S.E.2d 1 (1999)......