State v. Bright, 21599
| Decision Date | 30 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 21599,21599 |
| Citation | 963 S.W.2d 423 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Vincent Allen BRIGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Andrew A. Schroeder, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Daniel W. Follett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant was tried by jury for the class B felony of trafficking drugs in the second degree, § 195.223, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, by bringing into Missouri more than thirty kilograms of a mixture or substance containing marijuana. The jury found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment. The trial court entered judgment per the verdict. This appeal followed.
We first address the second of Appellant's two points relied on; it avers:
"The trial court erred in failing to sustain Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of Appellant's unlawful arrest, because Appellant was denied his right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, sections 10 and 15 of the Missouri Constitution, in that the State failed to carry its burden of proof at the suppression hearing and trial of producing evidence to show by a preponderance of the evidence that probable cause existed for Officer Riggs to make a warrantless arrest."
The arrest challenged in the above assignment of error occurred November 30, 1993. Evidence regarding it was presented at a pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress filed by Appellant, and subsequently at trial. In reviewing the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, we view the facts and reasonable inferences arising therefrom favorably to the trial court's ruling, disregarding contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Franklin, 841 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Mo. banc 1992).
So viewed, the evidence establishes that about 3:15 p.m., November 30, 1993, Corporal Jack McMullin of the Missouri State Highway Patrol was eastbound on Interstate Highway 44 ("I-44") in Greene County, traveling at the speed limit: fifty-five miles per hour. An eastbound Chevrolet displaying a Texas license passed him. He "paced" the Chevrolet at "sixty-five," then stopped it for speeding near the intersection of Glenstone and I-44 in Springfield.
The Chevrolet was occupied by two women. The driver was Amy Marie Guajardo. The passenger was Caramel Calway.
McMullin 1 asked Guajardo for her driver's license and the "registration" on the Chevrolet. Guajardo had no driver's license, but she and Calway produced a "rental agreement" for the Chevrolet.
McMullin directed Guajardo to go to his vehicle. There, he received information via radio that Guajardo's driver's license was "suspended in California." He issued her a summons for "no valid driver's license."
The rental agreement showed the Chevrolet was "an Alamo rental car" from Texas. The name on the agreement was Cornelius Williams.
Guajardo informed McMullin that she was living in El Paso, and that she and Calway were following her brother in another car. According to McMullin, Guajardo explained they were "following him up [to Detroit] so he could take that car up there, drop it off, then they were going to go back to El Paso in the car that she was driving."
Guajardo described the vehicle she was following as "a small brown car." Prior to stopping the Chevrolet, McMullin had observed a small Buick "with Michigan plates on it."
As McMullin's conversation with Guajardo progressed, she said the man in the other vehicle was her half brother. McMullin also recalled this:
"[S]he had given me ... a name that I don't remember being that of Cornelius Williams, who she described as her brother in the car."
Leaving Guajardo in his vehicle, McMullin walked to the Chevrolet and asked Calway whether she had a driver's license. She had none. McMullin noticed Calway was "very nervous."
Returning to his vehicle, McMullin asked Guajardo whether she and Calway had any luggage. Guajardo replied that her brother had put a bag in the trunk. That struck McMullin as unusual because "they were in a car of their own ... [w]hy would they ... put baggage in the back of their car."
By this time, McMullin was suspicious that the Chevrolet was carrying drugs. He explained
McMullin asked Guajardo for permission to search the Chevrolet. She consented. At that point, less than ten minutes had elapsed since the stop.
McMullin and Guajardo went to the Chevrolet. Guajardo opened the trunk. McMullin "smelled the odor of marijuana." Three bags in the trunk contained bundles of marijuana. In all, there were twenty-eight bundles weighing, in the aggregate, about eighty-five pounds.
McMullin arrested Guajardo and Calway.
While still at the roadside, McMullin informed his troop headquarters by radio about the arrests and asked that the eastbound Buick be stopped.
During the time those events were occurring, Corporal Gary W. Riggs of the Missouri State Highway Patrol -- the officer mentioned in Appellant's second point -- was on duty in a "marked patrol car" in the "Marshfield area" of Webster County. Asked where Webster County is situated with respect to Greene County, Riggs replied: "It's east of Greene County on Interstate 44[.]"
About 3:30 p.m., Riggs received a "radio dispatch" regarding the "stop" McMullin had made on I-44. Recounting the message, Riggs testified:
Riggs proceeded to I-44 and "set up in the median, a cross over there near Marshfield."
After an interval estimated by Riggs to be between six and twenty minutes, he saw a Buick bearing "Michigan plates" eastbound on I-44 driven by a black male. 2 The driver appeared to be the only occupant. Riggs "ran the plate" and was advised it was for a rental car.
Riggs began following the Buick but made no immediate attempt to stop it. He explained: "I ... waited a few minutes for a Marshfield police officer to catch up with me for backup."
When the Marshfield officer appeared, Riggs "got behind the [Buick]" and prepared to activate the red lights on his vehicle. At that moment, another person "came up in the back seat" of the Buick.
Riggs activated the red lights; the Buick drove onto the shoulder and stopped. At that point, Riggs had followed the Buick about six miles.
The driver of the Buick identified himself as Cornelius Williams, stated the Buick was a rental car, and produced a rental agreement.
The occupant of the back seat -- the only passenger in the Buick -- was Appellant. He identified himself as Dennis Earl Bright. 3
Riggs looked at the rental agreement; it bore the name Cornelius Williams.
Riggs informed troop headquarters that he had the Buick stopped and "two subjects" in custody. The dispatcher told Riggs to arrest both men "for possible drug trafficking." Riggs did so, handcuffing them and advising them of their rights "per the Miranda[ 4] card."
Appellant and Williams were taken from the arrest site to troop headquarters in Springfield.
Sergeant Miles Parks of the Missouri State Highway Patrol interviewed Calway at troop headquarters after her arrest. At trial, Parks identified Exhibit 1 as a "note" he obtained from Calway.
Calway described Exhibit 1 as "the roads [we] were supposed to [follow], and then this was just in case we got lost, this was the number we were supposed to call."
Although Exhibit 1 has not been filed with us, Parks read it aloud in the presence of the jury. His recitation is footnoted below. 5
After interviewing Calway, Parks interviewed Guajardo, then Appellant.
Parks asked Appellant whether he recognized Exhibit 1. According to Parks, Appellant responded that "they were his directions from Detroit to El Paso." Parks then asked Appellant whether the handwriting on Exhibit 1 was his. Appellant's reply, according to Parks, was: However, added Parks, Appellant "said he didn't know JB."
Although Appellant's second point does not identify the evidence which, according to Appellant, the trial court should have suppressed, we glean from the argument following the point that the only evidence toward which the point is directed is "[Appellant's] statement to ... Parks at ... headquarters that the handwriting on the piece of notebook paper ... was his." The State's brief reflects that understanding of Appellant's second point. Accordingly, our discussion of the point is based on the assumption that the point challenges the admissibility of only Appellant's statements to Parks about Exhibit 1.
The version of § 544.216 in force on the date Appellant was arrested is the version in RSMo Cum.Supp.1993. It reads, in pertinent part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pittman
...including all favorable inferences drawn therefrom, and we disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary." State v. Bright, 963 S.W.2d 423, 429 (Mo.App.1998). We have summarized the evidence presented at trial in accordance with these In May 2001, Ringgold was working for the Spring......
-
State v. Mitchell
...guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Butler, 951 S.W.2d at 604; State v. Bowens, 964 S.W.2d 232, 236-37 (Mo.App.1998); State v. Bright, 963 S.W.2d 423, 429 (Mo.App.1998). "Substantial evidence is evidence from which the trier of fact reasonably can find the issue in harmony with the evidence."......
-
Bright v. State
...466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. A detailed account of the facts underlying Movant's conviction is contained in State v. Bright, 963 S.W.2d 423, 425-30 (Mo.App. 1998). Briefly, they show that on November 30, 1993, a member of the Missouri Highway Patrol conducted a consent search of a Ch......