Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 2001 |
| Parties | Willie RICHARDSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. Donald Bolton, Jr., Foley; and Oliver J. Latour, Jr., Foley, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and G. Ward Beeson III, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1002043.
Willie Richardson pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana, a violation of § 13A-12-231(1), Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Richardson to serve 15 years in prison and ordered him to pay the accompanying $25,000 fine, $100 to the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Fund, the $1000 fine mandated by the Alabama Demand Reduction Assessment Act, and $100 to the Alabama Forensic Sciences Trust Fund. The trial court also ordered the suspension of Richardson's driver's license for six months and ordered the seized evidence to be condemned and forfeited to the Baldwin County Sheriff's Department. At his guilty plea proceedings, Richardson twice reserved the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement and any evidence seized as a result of those statements.1
According to the affidavit underlying the search warrant, the police had orchestrated a controlled buy at Richardson's residence earlier in the day on April 6, 1999. At the suppression hearing, Officer Dean McGowan, an investigator with the Baldwin County Sheriffs Department, testified that, on April 6, 1999, at approximately 5:55 p.m., he and seven or eight other officers executed a warrant upon Richardson's residence.2 Upon the arrival of the law enforcement officers, Richardson was standing outside of his residence. The officers exited their vehicles and ordered Richardson to the ground. McGowan testified that they then handcuffed Richardson and took him inside his house, and McGowan read Richardson his Miranda rights from a card. McGowan testified that he and Richardson then had the following conversation:
(R. 12-13.)
Richardson testified that the search warrant was executed at "about 5:00" when he and his 15-year-old daughter were at home and that he was not advised of his right to remain silent. (R. 31, 33.) Richardson also testified that he was stripsearched in view of his daughter, which McGowan had denied during his testimony. Additionally, Richardson testified to a different version of the events described by McGowan:
(R. 31-35.)
McGowan testified that one of the officers had already called Richardson's wife and asked her to come home. When she arrived, McGowan handcuffed her and told her that she was under arrest and had the right to remain silent. McGowan testified to the following:
(R. 23-28.)
Richardson testified that, when the police first put him and his wife in the patrol car, two officers got in the front seat, and, trying to convince them to disclose the location of the money, stated, "Don't let your wife go to jail, just tell us where the money is." (R. 38.) Richardson testified that, after the two officers got out of the car, Richardson consoled his crying wife and asked her if she wanted him to tell the police where the money was. The windows of the patrol car were rolled up, and Richardson testified that his wife was about to faint because of the heat. Richardson also testified that he would not have talked to his wife if he had known that their conversation was being recorded. Richardson and his wife both testified that the police played the recording for them. Richardson and his wife testified that, when the police played the tape for him, an officer said to his wife, "[I]f you ain't involved, you are involved now," (R. 39, 48), and he agreed to show them where the money was hidden.
Although McGowan testified that he did not threaten Richardson with taking his 15-year-old daughter into custody (R. 14), Richardson testified that the officers did threaten to take his daughter to juvenile detention. (R. 43.) Richardson's wife further testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucas v. Estes
...to preserve the issue for appellate review; counsel was not required thereafter to further "object." See Richardson v. State, 819 So. 2d 91, 94 n. 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001); Newton v. State, 673 So. 2d 799, 800 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995). Therefore, counsel's performance was not deficient on tha......
-
Wimbley v. State
...” Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d at 211. See also Albarran v. State, 96 So.3d 131, 154 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Richardson v. State, 819 So.2d 91, 103 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).The State's evidence, excluding Wimbley's confession, overwhelmingly established his guilt. The State presented evidence es......
-
Baird v. State
...390, 392 (Ala.1995).'" 745 So.2d at 305-06, quoting Barnes v. State, 704 So.2d 487, 492 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). In Richardson v. State, 819 So.2d 91 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), this Court stated: "`The fundamental requirements for voluntariness of confessions are that the court must conclude, in ord......
-
Carroll v. State
...of guilt is ‘virtually ironclad.’ " Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d at 211. See also Albarran, 96 So.3d at 154 ; Richardson v. State, 819 So.2d 91, 103 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).The State's evidence, excluding Carroll's recorded confession, overwhelmingly established his guilt. The State presented......