State v. Burton
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED 109890 |
| Citation | 649 S.W.3d 389 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Keyshawn Omari BURTON, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.
Jeffrey C. Esparza, 920 Main Street, Suite 500, Kansas City, MO 64105, For Defendant/Appellant.
Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.
Keyshawn Omari Burton (Appellant) appeals from the Judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for two counts of misdemeanor assault in the fourth degree, in violation of Section 565.056, RSMo 20001 ; misdemeanor resisting arrest, in violation of Section 575.150; and felony stealing, in violation of Section 570.030. Appellant received 110-day sentences for each of the misdemeanor counts and received a four-year sentence for the felony stealing count, suspended execution of that sentence, and was placed on probation for a term of five years. We affirm.
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was adduced at trial:
At approximately 4:00 a.m. on November 13, 2019, law enforcement officers with the Jefferson County Sherriff's Office received a call that several people in a white car were breaking into cars. One officer saw two people running from two separate driveways getting into a white car, which "accelerated very quickly," and then drove straight toward the officer's patrol car. Startled, the officer hit the brakes, and the white car passed within a few inches of hitting his patrol car. The white car did not have its lights on, indicating that it was trying to travel unnoticed. The officer then turned on his emergency lights, but by the time he turned his car around, the white car got away.
Meanwhile, another officer went to a nearby area to deploy spike strips in order to stop the white car. But before he could deploy them, he saw the car veer off the road and drive toward him, forcing him to jump out of the way. The incident was witnessed by an officer in another patrol car, who then followed the white car until it hit spike strips deployed by other officers, causing the car to slow down and eventually stop.
Appellant and the other individuals ran from the car into the woods. Police searched the area for several hours looking for them. Meanwhile, another officer approached the abandoned white car and saw a handgun on the driver's seat, which he seized. It was later confirmed the gun had been stolen the same day from an unlocked car of a nearby resident. The gun was also seen in a Facebook video.
Following the hours-long search, officers eventually found and arrested four suspects who ran away from the white car, one of whom was Appellant. Detective Shawn Cope (Detective Cope) arrested Appellant, placed him inside his patrol vehicle, and because Appellant was sixteen years old at the time, Detective Cope immediately contacted the juvenile office for instructions. Deputy Juvenile Officer Elizabeth Weiss (Juvenile Officer Weiss) responded to the call and told Detective Cope to take Appellant to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office headquarters and await her arrival, which Detective Cope promptly did. Upon her arrival, Juvenile Officer Weiss and Detective Cope entered the interview room. Juvenile Officer Weiss read Appellant his statement of rights, and Appellant acknowledged he understood those rights. After Appellant signed the waiver form, Detective Cope interviewed Appellant in the presence of Appellant's mother and Juvenile Officer Weiss. A redacted video of the interview was admitted at trial. In the video, Appellant admitted to stealing a gun from one of the victims’ cars and also admitted he was driving the white car when it ran over the spike strips.
Thereafter, Appellant was certified as an adult and charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action for driving a vehicle at a police officer's patrol car; first-degree assault and armed criminal action for swerving a vehicle at another officer; felony resisting arrest for fleeing from an officer who was arresting him for first-degree assault; and felony stealing for appropriating a firearm, all occurring on or about November 13, 2019. Appellant entered pleas of not guilty to all counts and filed a motion to suppress his statements made during the police interrogation. In his motion, Appellant argued the interrogation violated his rights under Section 211.061 because it happened before he was delivered to juvenile authorities. After a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion. The trial court found, inter alia , that the requirements of Sections 211.059 and 211.061 were not violated and that "Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and elected to give a statement." The trial court further found that Appellant being "tired" does not "negate the statement being made, as a violation of his rights."2
Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the lesser-included offenses of fourth-degree assault for each of the assault charges; not guilty of each of the armed criminal action charges; guilty of misdemeanor resisting arrest; and guilty of stealing as charged. Appellant received 110-day sentences for each of the misdemeanor counts and a four-year sentence for the felony stealing count, the execution of which was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years. This appeal follows.3
This Court will affirm the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Lanos, 14 S.W.3d 90, 93 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). If the ruling is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we will not reverse, even if we would have weighed the evidence differently. State v. Norman, 431 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and disregard contrary evidence and inferences. Lanos, 14 S.W.3d at 93. We give deference to the trial court in judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. In addition, "[w]e will consider all evidence presented at trial as well as evidence presented at a pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress." Norman, 431 S.W.3d at 568.
In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court clearly erred in overruling his motion to suppress, in which he argued that law enforcement failed to take him "immediately and directly" before the juvenile court or deliver him "to the juvenile officer or person acting for the juvenile as required by Section 211.061." Specifically, Appellant argues that law enforcement failed to strictly comply with the statute by not delivering him to juvenile authorities before interrogating him, thereby violating his rights under Section 211.061. Appellant further complains that Section 211.061 was violated because he was not physically transported to Juvenile Officer Weiss. We disagree.
In State v. Wade, 531 S.W.2d 726, 728-29 (Mo. banc 1976), the Missouri Supreme Court reiterated the holding that failure to strictly and literally comply with Section 211.061 constitutes reversible error. The court stated, Id. at 729. Acknowledging the incapacities of juveniles, the court determined that the Juvenile Code:
recognizes the incapacities of persons [younger than] seventeen years of age, and intends that a child shall be provided with the assistance of a juvenile officer or other juvenile court personnel before he is subjected to the rigors of police interrogation. We doubt the capacity of an offender [younger than] seventeen years of age to legally effect a waiver of any kind in the absence of such a person.
Id. at 728-29. Section 211.061 states in relevant part:
1. When a child is taken into custody with or without warrant for an offense, the child, together with any information concerning the child and the personal property found in the child's possession, shall be taken immediately and directly before the juvenile court or delivered to the juvenile officer or person acting for him. [Emphasis added.]
Section 211.061.1. Rule 110.04 states that a " ‘juvenile officer’ includes a deputy juvenile officer and other court personnel authorized to exercise the powers of the juvenile officer." Rule 110.04(15).
Here, at the suppression hearing, Detective Cope testified that after Appellant was spotted in the back seat of a car stopped at a gas station, he placed Appellant in his patrol vehicle. Detective Cope testified that because Appellant was sixteen years old at the time, he immediately contacted the Juvenile Office before conducting an interview or transporting Appellant anywhere. Juvenile Officer Weiss, who responded to the call, testified she was familiar with the Missouri Deputy Juvenile Officer Standards that help protect a juvenile's rights once in police custody. She also explained that when a juvenile is taken into custody, it is customary that the juvenile be brought to the juvenile detention center, or taken to the police department for questioning, or brought to the Juvenile Office. Juvenile Officer Weiss testified that among her duties were to determine if a juvenile needed to be detained and if a police interview needed to be conducted. She testified that before a police interview could be conducted, a parent had to be present and the juvenile officer was required to ensure the juvenile understood his rights during a criminal investigation. Juvenile Officer Weiss testified she and her supervisors determined that police...
To continue reading
Request your trial