Raines v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1983
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 860
• Parties: Joseph RAINES, alias v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 206

428 So.2d 206

Joseph RAINES, alias v. STATE of Alabama.

6 Div. 860.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 1, 1983.

Harry Lyon, Pelham, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jennifer M. Mullins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

TYSON, Judge.

Joseph Raines was indicted for robbery in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-8-41, Code of Alabama 1975, and was found "guilty of robbery as charged in the indictment" by the jury.

After a hearing by the trial court, in accordance with the Habitual Offender Act, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

Nancy Gale Rushen was the manager of a Shop-a-Snak convenience store in Jefferson County on January 20, 1981. On that day at approximately 12:30 p.m., a man entered the store and requested a certain kind of shaving cream, which Ms. Rushen informed him was not then in the store's stock. At that point, this man brought several items to the counter and Ms. Rushen rang up the cost on those items. After this, the man ordered her to "put the money in the bag." (R. 42). After he made this statement three times, this man (appellant) placed his hand on the handle of a pistol stuck in his pants. Ms. Rushen removed $125 from the cash register and put it in the bag, which contained the items that the appellant had selected.

Then he said, "Now, come out, and let's go to the back." (R. 43). He assured her that he was not going to hurt her, and then he ran out the door. Ms. Rushen identified the appellant during the trial as the man who robbed her that day.

On that same day, Meredith Moody was working in the building next door to the Shop-a-Snak. She observed a man enter the Shop-a-Snak and then leave a few minutes later with a gun in his pants.

She told Jerry Dill, the mailman, that the Shop-a-Snak had just been robbed. Dill saw a man running between the building in which Ms. Moody worked, and the next building. He pursued the man and saw him get into a bluish-gray late 1960's model Chevrolet with a Florida license tag number RPD 923.

On January 26, 1982, at approximately 12:03 a.m., the appellant was stopped by the police in Flagstaff, Arizona. Apparently, at this time, the appellant had not violated any laws. At some point during this period, the police officer in question ran a check on the appellant's vehicle (Florida tag number RPD 923) with the National Crime Identification Center (NCIC) and discovered the car had been reported stolen.

The appellant was taken into custody at this time and was advised of the charges against him, and he was given his Miranda warnings. He signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights.

Detective Joseph James of the Flagstaff Police Department questioned the appellant the next day concerning his involvement in an armed robbery in Birmingham, Alabama, and the appellant initially said he didn't know anything about this robbery. James then informed the appellant that Sergeant Miller of the Birmingham Police Department had informed him that there were several eyewitnesses to the robbery and someone had obtained the appellant's Florida tag number. He then asked the appellant to consider these facts.

After the two had talked for approximately forty-five minutes about various topics, the appellant told James, "I want to give you a statement." (R. 128). James testified the appellant stated that:

"... times were bad for him, that he was having a lot of problems, that he wanted to see his three year old son in California pretty bad, so he left Florida. He had very little money. When he got to Birmingham he needed some money. He saw the store, he saw that there were very few people in the store, so he parked his car at the restaurant. He didn't know whether it was a Denny's or Sambo's or what the name of the restaurant was, but he parked his car there--let me sort of fix a picture in your mind here. As he described it to me, there is a restaurant here and then a bank next to the restaurant and then the store was on the other side, so he walked past the bank over to the store. He walked inside the store and saw the lady was there by herself. He looked around the store, saw that there was nobody else in the store, then he walked up to the lady and he says, 'I want the money.' He then placed his hand on a pistol that he carries in the front of his pants. He put his hand on the butt of the pistol. It was his right hand that he placed on the butt of his pistol. At that time the lady opened the cash register and she took out the money and she placed it in a paper bag. Mr. Raines stated that he didn't know exactly how much money it was. He said that he never counted it, he figures about $150. He described the girl that he robbed as having black hair that was combed back. Her hair was combed back. She was about five-six, she was a white girl and she was slender. Mr. Raines stated that as soon as he obtained his money, then he left the store and as he left the store that there was a pick-up truck that pulled up. I asked him if there was anything particular about the way the pick-up truck pulled up. He said, 'No, it was just a normal customer that pulled up to the store, that drove up there and pulled in.' He stated that he then left the store, he went up to Highway 20 and then continued his tour on to California." (R. 128-129).

The appellant also told James that the pistol found in his vehicle after interrogation was the same one he had used during the robbery in Birmingham.

Sergeant Miller went to Flagstaff and brought the appellant back to Jefferson County. The appellant was again given his Miranda warnings and he signed a waiver of his Miranda rights. He told Sergeant Miller that he had committed the robbery in question, but that he had already given Detective James his statement and didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Some time later, Sergeant Miller showed Ms. Rushen six photographs in order to allow her to attempt to identify the man who robbed her. After studying the photographs, Ms. Rushen chose the appellant's photograph and said, "This looks just exactly like him." (R. 56). She then admitted she was not absolutely positive.

On March 4, 1981, the day of the appellant's scheduled preliminary hearing, Ms. Rushen positively identified the appellant as the man who robbed her on January 20, 1981.

I

The appellant contends that the State failed to show that the arresting officer in Flagstaff, Arizona, who originally stopped the appellant, had probable cause to do so, and therefore, the defense's motion to suppress the evidence was improperly denied.

The appellant's contention that his confession was the fruit of an illegal stop is without merit.

There was conflicting evidence presented at trial as to whether the appellant's license tag was checked with the NCIC before or after he was stopped. Detective James testified that he was not the officer who stopped the appellant but that he had examined the official police report and determined the NCIC check was run before the appellant was stopped. His testimony was as follows:

"VOIR DIRE BY THE STATE

"BY MR. SOWA:

"Q From the officer's report were you able to determine why they stopped the car Mr. Raines was driving?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q What was that reason, sir?

"A They were noticing the out of state plates driving at the time of three minutes after midnight, and his rather than going five miles over the speed limit he was going ten miles under the speed limit.

"MR. LYON: Under?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q (By Mr. Sowa) Was he stopped for a traffic violation, or for what?

"A He was stopped because the officer ran his plate and received a hit on it.

"Q Through what, sir?

"A Through the National Crime Identification Center.

"Q A hit for what, sir?

"A The vehicle which he was driving was reported stolen out of Florida. (R. 83).

"VOIR DIRE BY THE DEFENSE

"BY MR. LYON:

"Q Officer James, you've got some notes there from the officer who pulled over Mr. Raines?

"A I have the report, yes, sir.

"Q Could I see that report?

"A Certainly.

"Q Could you refer me to that section that goes to my client being pulled over.

"A The report number would be Flagstaff Report No. DR, No. 81-0916 on page two. On the first paragraph it says on 1-26-81 at approximately 0003 hours, RO, traveling westbound on Sante Fe Avenue when I observed a vehicle, blue Chevvy Florida license plate, RPD 923, traveling 25 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone.

"Q What does RO stand for?

"A Reporting Officer.

"Q Now, you don't know whether or not the reporting officer pulled the defendant over and then ran the NCIC check or whether he ran the NCIC check and then pulled him over, do you, those notes don't reflect that, do they?

"A Yes, sir, they do.

"Q Where do they reflect that?

"A The next sentence.

"Q What does the next sentence say?

"A RO ran warrant check on the vehicle; warrant check revealed the vehicle was stolen in McLean, Baker County, Florida, Warrant No. 102, Date of Crime; Suspect vehicle was stopped at El Rancho Market East. (R. 91-92).

The appellant testified as follows:

"VOIR DIRE BY THE DEFENSE

"BY MR. LYON:

"Q If I understand this correctly, Mr. Raines, after you were pulled over you were put in the police car and I believe you said he reached for the microphone and the officer said, 'I want--

"MR. SOWA: Object to the leading nature of the question.

"MR. LYON: I'm just going over what I believed he said, Your Honor.

"THE COURT: Go ahead.

"Q And you said he wanted to run a check on and he gave the tag number, is that right?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q And I believe you testified on cross examination that it came back on the radio 'Give us that second letter again.'

"A Yes, the person was a lady that asked for the second letter.

"Q The dispatcher was a lady?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q And they asked for the tag number while you were in the car?

"A I was in the back seat.

"Q And he gave it to them again, did he not?

"A Yes, he did.

"Q About five minutes later they got a report back from the Police...