State v. Cotton
| Decision Date | 03 October 2000 |
| Citation | 32 S.W.3d 577 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danny Joe Cotton, Appellant. Case Number: WD57264 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Thomas J. Brown, III
Counsel for Appellant: James F. Crews and Michael P. O'Neill
Counsel for Respondent: Philip M. Koppe
Opinion Summary:
Danny Joe Cotton appeals his jury conviction for the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, section 195.202, for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
Division III holds:
Rule 30.04(a) provides that the record on appeal must contain all of the record, proceedings, and evidence necessary to determine all claims on appeal. As such, in order for us to be able to review the claim in Point I, that the trial court erred in overruling his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, it was Cotton's responsibility to provide the requisite record on appeal, which would include the complete transcript of the hearing on his motion.
The record reflects that Cotton's pre-trial motion to suppress was heard on March 1, 1999, and overruled on March 2, 1999. However, Cotton failed to file a transcript of the hearing. Thus, this Court is unable to review the claim in Point I.
As to Points II through VI, this Court finds that they fail to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1) in that they fail to: (a) identify the trial court ruling or action that is challenged; (b) state concisely the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error; and (c) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, these legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. All six points relied on further violate Rule 84.04 in that they are not substantially in the form set out in the rule for a proper point relied on, lack sufficient arguments, cite no authority upon which the arguments rest, and fail to make specific page references to the legal file or the transcript. For these reasons, the claims of error raised in Points II through VI are not adequately preserved for review.
Danny Joe Cotton1 appeals the judgment of his jury conviction in the Circuit Court of Cole County for the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, section 195.202,2 for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. The appellant raises six points on appeal. In Point I, he claims that the trial court erred in overruling his pre-trial motion and failing to suppress the methamphetamine and other items seized during a warrantless search of his person and motor vehicle pursuant to a traffic stop because the search and seizure were illegal. In Points II through VI, the appellant claims that the trial court erred, on various grounds, in allowing certain testimony and evidence at trial.
We affirm.
On July 6, 1998, at around 8:30 p.m., Deputy Marc Miller pulled in behind the appellant's truck while patrolling on the outskirts of Russellville, Cole County, Missouri. Deputy Miller noticed a defective driver's side taillight and decided to stop the vehicle. He activated his overhead lights, and then his siren, but the appellant drove some distance before finally stopping. Deputy Miller observed that the appellant's vehicle had a gun rack on which were hung two rifles. He also observed the appellant making shoulder and torso movements inside the truck's cab.
After stopping the appellant's truck, Deputy Miller had the appellant exit and stand at the back of the truck, while he called for backup. Having radioed for backup, he received a "caution indicator" dispatch, indicating that the appellant had a history of assaulting police officers. Once backup arrived, Deputy Miller issued the appellant a warning ticket for the defective taillight. He then asked the appellant if he had any narcotics on his person or in his vehicle, to which the appellant responded, "No." Deputy Miller asked the appellant if he would mind emptying the contents of his pockets. The appellant did so, revealing $150 in cash, a 22-caliber bullet, and some small pipes of aluminum foil.
Before allowing the appellant to reenter his truck, Deputy Miller conducted a protective search of the truck for weapons. During the course of the protective search, Deputy Miller discovered what he believed to be drug paraphernalia in the floorboard of the truck, and placed the appellant under arrest for possession of the same. A further search of the truck revealed a ziplock plastic bag containing a white, powdery substance, later determined to be methamphetamine. Deputy Miller seized all the items discovered during the course of his protective search.
On November 20, 1998, the appellant was charged with the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of section 195.202. On February 16, 1999, he filed a motion to suppress all the evidence seized during the course of the traffic stop, alleging that it was the product of an illegal search and seizure. On March 1, 1999, the trial court held a hearing on the appellant's motion and overruled it the next day.
The appellant's case proceeded to a jury trial. He was found guilty as charged and later sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a term of one year and fined $46, after the trial court had overruled his motion for a new trial.
This appeal follows.
In Point I, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling his pre-trial motion and failing to suppress the methamphetamine and other items seized during a warrantless search of his person and motor vehicle pursuant to a traffic stop because the search and seizure were illegal. For the reasons discussed, infra, we find that we are unable to review his claim raised in this point.
When the objection to evidence at trial is the same as that raised by a pre-trial motion to suppress, in our review of the same we are necessarily required to review the transcript of the hearing on the pre-trial motion. State v. Adams, 927 S.W.2d 483, 484 (Mo. App. 1996); State v. Hummel, 652 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Mo. App. 1983). In this regard, Rule 30.04(a) provides that
the record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings, and evidence necessary for a determination of all questions to be presented. It further provides that the transcript to be filed with the appellate court "shall contain the portions of the proceedings and evidence not previously reduced to written form."
Adams, 927 S.W.2d at 484. As such, to enable us to adequately review the appellant's claim in Point I, that the trial court erred in overruling his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, it was the appellant's responsibility to provide the requisite record on appeal, which would include the transcript of the hearing on his motion. Id.; Hummel, 652 S.W.2d at 750.
The record reflects that the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress was heard on March 1, 1999, and overruled on March 2, 1999. However, the record further reflects that the appellant failed to file a transcript of the hearing. As such, we are unable to review the appellant's claim raised in Point I. Id.
Point denied.
In Points II through VI, the appellant claims that the trial court erred, on various grounds, in allowing certain testimony and evidence at trial. Due to the substantial deficiencies in the appellant's briefing of these points, which we discuss, infra, the claims of error raised therein are not properly preserved for review.
The appellant's Points II-VI read as follows:
II.
The Court erred in allowing the testimony of the "aggressive Deputy," Marc Miller, as to the value of the mixture of methamphetamine and amphetamine, in that no foundation was shown as to the chemical composition of the exhibit or that the chemist even knew the quantitative analysis of said compound and that it was impossible for Deputy Miller to know the street value of an unknown compound.
The Court erred in allowing a 35-millimeter film canister into evidence that was testified to as being full of pills in that the canister and pills would have been evidence of another crime.
The Court erred in allowing testimony from Deputy Miller as to a piece of straw and film canister as being drug paraphernalia.
The Court erred in allowing Sidney Popejoy to testify as to the degrees and qualifications of Misty Rushing as an employee over which he had supervising authority.
The Court erred in allowing Sidney Popejoy to testify as to scientific tests performed on the exhibits when he did not testify as to actual knowledge of the steps taken in chemically handling the exhibits.
These points do not comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1),3 made applicable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Campbell
...gain an understanding of the case." Blanks v. Fluor Corp. , 450 S.W.3d 308, 324 n.1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) ; see also State v. Cotton , 32 S.W.3d 577, 581 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder. Therefore, under Hart , Defendant could have been sentenced t......
-
State v. Jackson
...but as to the facts and arguments being relied on in support thereof, we have no choice but to decline review. State v. Cotton, 32 S.W.3d 577, 581 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). Appellant has failed to comply with Rule 84.04 so substantially that his appeal is We first observe that Appellant's brief d......
-
State v. Bledsoe
...because to do so has the practical effect of punishing the appellant for the failures of his appellate counsel," State v. Cotton, 32 S.W.3d 577, 581 (Mo.App. W.D.2000), we will exercise our discretion to review Defendant's first two points on the "Whether a criminal defendant's right to be ......
-
State v. Westmoreland
...proposition, appellate courts are naturally reluctant to decline review in a criminal case for briefing deficiencies. State v. Cotton, 32 S.W.3d 577, 581 (Mo.App.W.D. 2000). However, where "the briefing deficiencies are so substantial that the appellate court, in order to conduct any review......