State v. Bodenhamer
| Docket Number | ED110766 |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. PAUL W. BODENHAMER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County 2011-CR03529-01 Honorable Deborah J. Alessi
Paul W Bodenhamer ("Defendant") appeals the judgment following a bench trial, finding him guilty of the class D felony of possession of a controlled substance (Count I), the class D misdemeanor of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (Count II), the class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated (Count III), and the class C misdemeanor of failure to signal (Count IV). The trial court's judgment sentenced Defendant to six years of imprisonment on Count I fined Defendant $50 on Count II, and fined Defendant $50 on Count IV. As to Count III, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Defendant on a period of probation for two years.
In its respondent's brief, the State argues Defendant's entire appeal should be dismissed on the grounds there is not a final, appealable judgment because the trial court suspended imposition of sentence as to Count III. In his appellant's brief, Defendant raises one point on appeal asserting the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in admitting incriminating evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop at trial. For the reasons discussed below, we hold, (1) there is a final, appealable judgment as to Counts I, II, and IV (2) there is not a final, appealable judgment as to Count III; and (3) the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in denying Defendant's motion to suppress and admitting incriminating evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop at trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as to Counts I, II, and IV, and we dismiss the appeal as to Count III.
Defendant was charged with the above crimes as a result of an incident which occurred on March 6, 2020. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the record, and defense counsel filed a written waiver of a jury trial.
Prior to a bench trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence obtained as a result of his traffic stop which pertained to his possession of drugs, his possession of drug paraphernalia, and his drug usage. Defendant's motion conceded the officers' initial traffic stop of his vehicle was lawful but argued the stop was "unlawfully extended when the [t]rooper conducted sobriety tests on [Defendant] without reasonable, articulable suspicion that [he] was driving while impaired."
The trial court held a suppression hearing at which Trooper Dontia Johnson testified, Sergeant Tyler Jenkins testified, and a dash cam video of the traffic stop involving Defendant (Exhibit 1) was admitted into evidence. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress and immediately held a bench trial.
At trial, the State offered into evidence two exhibits: Exhibit 1 (the dash cam video that was admitted at the suppression hearing) and Exhibit 2 (the entirety of the Missouri State Highway Patrol's reports in this case). Defense counsel affirmatively stated he had no objection to Exhibit 2 being received into evidence, the parties agreed the case was being submitted on the record, and the trial court admitted Exhibits 1 and 2 into evidence without objection.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress,[1] the following relevant evidence was adduced at Defendant's suppression hearing and trial.
On March 6, 2020, at about 11:30 p.m., Trooper Johnson observed a Ford pickup truck being operated by Defendant traveling westbound on Interstate 70. Present with Trooper Johnson was Sergeant Jenkins, who is a drug recognition expert and instructor.
Trooper Johnson and Sergeant Jenkins (collectively "the Officers") both witnessed Defendant committing several traffic violations and operating his vehicle in an erratic and unusual manner. The Officers initially observed the truck change lanes without using a turn signal, which caused them to begin following the truck and activate the patrol vehicle's camera. As the Officers followed Defendant's truck, they observed it "weaving in its lane," which Trooper Johnson further described as "get[ting] close to one dotted[-]white line, and then get[ting] close to the other." Defendant's truck then made a sudden exit off the highway, before proceeding down the exit ramp at an excessive speed and straddling the line dividing two lanes. Defendant subsequently made a wide turn, drove in a left-turn lane with the left-turn signal on but without turning left, and again drove on a dotted-white line.
Trooper Johnson testified that based on his training and experience, Defendant's traffic violations were indicators Defendant was potentially intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. Similarly, Sergeant Jenkins testified, "[t]here were some violations that were consistent with possible impairment." After Trooper Johnson activated his emergency lights to stop Defendant's truck, Defendant failed to stop at the first opportunity and ultimately pulled into the parking lot of a closed McDonalds.
Upon contact with Defendant, Trooper Johnson advised him of the reason for the stop. Trooper Johnson asked Defendant why he failed to keep his truck within its own lane, and Defendant replied, Trooper Johnson testified Defendant's behavior was unusual in that he was "constantly smiling" in an "abnormal" manner and he was "twitching" with "constant movement." Sergeant Jenkins similarly testified Defendant had some "uncontrollable" "twitching of his fingers." The Officers collectively testified that based on their training and experience, Defendant's twitching was consistent with usage of methamphetamine or a similar stimulant. Trooper Johnson also suspected Defendant was under the influence of drugs rather than alcohol because there was no odor of alcohol or any alcohol containers visible in the vehicle.
Trooper Johnson asked Defendant to step outside of his vehicle so he could ask him more questions and conduct field sobriety tests. During Trooper Johnson's questioning of Defendant, the trooper asked Defendant where he had been, and Defendant stated he was at work and then went to a friend's house. Upon further questioning by Trooper Johnson, Defendant denied drinking any alcohol and he refused to let the Officers search his truck. Trooper Johnson also asked Defendant when he had last used drugs, and Defendant admitted he used drugs but claimed it had been "sometime ago." Additionally, Defendant inconsistently said he was going to McDonalds - which was closed - to get a burger when he also said that he just had a burger, and Trooper Johnson testified such an inconsistency is typical of impaired drivers.
Defendant agreed to perform field sobriety tests, and Trooper Johnson conducted five such tests - the alphabet test, the counting test, the modified Romberg test, the one-leg-stand test, and the walk-and-turn test. Defendant successfully completed the alphabet test, but he failed the remaining four tests.
Based on the totality of the circumstances set out above, the Officers determined Defendant was under the influence of a drug and arrested him for driving while intoxicated. After being advised of Missouri's Implied Consent Law, Defendant consented to having his blood drawn for testing. Subsequent to Defendant's arrest, Defendant's truck was searched, and troopers found baggies containing methamphetamine, a straw, and multiple pipes. Additionally, Defendant made statements following his arrest admitting he used methamphetamine and marijuana and taking responsibility for the items found in his truck. Defendant submitted to a drug recognition evaluation at the hospital, which concluded he was under the influence of a drug. Additionally, a laboratory analysis revealed Defendant's blood contained diazepam, methamphetamine, amphetamine, and carboxy-THC.
After Defendant's bench trial, the trial court found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance (Count I), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (Count II), driving while intoxicated (Count III), and failure to signal (Count IV). The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with its guilty verdicts and sentenced Defendant to six years of imprisonment on Count I, fined Defendant $50 on Count II, and fined Defendant $50 on Count IV. As to Count III, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Defendant on a period of probation for two years. Defendant appeals.
Defendant raises one point on appeal. Before setting out and considering the merits of Defendant's point, we will address the State's argument that Defendant's entire appeal should be dismissed on the grounds there is not a final, appealable judgment because the trial court suspended imposition of sentence as to Count III.
In support of the State's argument that there is not a final, appealable judgment in this case, the State primarily relies upon State v. Waters, 597 S.W.3d 185 (Mo. banc 2020).
In Waters, the defendant was charged with four counts. Id. at 186. A jury found the defendant guilty of two counts, and the trial court imposed a sentence on those two counts. Id. As to the other two counts, the jury could not reach a verdict, the trial court declared a mistrial, and the trial court did not impose a sentence. Id. Under those circumstances, the Missouri Supreme Court held that "[a] judgment in a criminal case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial