State v. Haneline
| Decision Date | 07 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | WD84964 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. LEE ALLEN HANELINE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri The Honorable Patrick K. Robb, Judge
Before Division Four: Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Presiding, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Jerri J. Zhang, Special Judge
Lee Allen Haneline ("Haneline") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri ("trial court"), following a jury trial, convicting him of one count of possession of a controlled substance (Felony D) section 579.015.[1] Haneline raises three points on appeal and argues that: (1) the trial court erred in overruling Haneline's motions for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haneline had knowledge of and control over the controlled substance which he was charged with possessing; (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony that the lunchbox contained drug paraphernalia because the State did not prove that the items in the lunchbox were, in fact, drug paraphernalia, thus the testimony was not relevant; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting the contents of the lunchbox into evidence because the contents were the product of an unreasonable, warrantless search.[2] We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Statement of Facts[3]
On May 28, 2020, Deputy Marcus Garza ("Garza") of the Buchanan County Sheriff's Office was patrolling the Jentell Brees Conservation area around midnight in his patrol car. As Garza drove through the park, he observed Haneline on all fours digging in the ground on an embankment near a creek. When Haneline noticed the high-beam lights from Garza's patrol car, he got up and wiped himself off. Garza exited his patrol car and approached Haneline to investigate and began speaking with Haneline just a few steps from where Haneline had been digging. Garza did not observe anyone else in the conservation area.
Garza asked Haneline why he was digging, and Haneline could not give a straight answer. Haneline stated that he was night fishing with his friend, Randy, who was across the creek in his kayak. Haneline yelled out for Randy to come back. Garza radioed for backup units to assist him, and additional deputies arrived at the location approximately fifteen minutes later. While waiting for backup units to arrive, Garza and Haneline continued to talk. Garza did not observe anything that suggested Haneline was under the influence of or had ingested drugs or alcohol. At approximately the time the other officers arrived, Randy came back to the area in a kayak. He was not questioned or searched and was allowed to leave. When the additional officers arrived, Haneline went to talk to the other deputies, and Garza began looking at the ground where Haneline had been digging. There, Garza observed a pellet air rifle sitting on the ground and next to it, also sitting on the ground, was a black lunchbox with a zippered top that was partially opened. Garza unzipped the lunchbox and inside Garza found a radio antenna, several disposable razor blades batteries, a lottery ticket, a lighter, a pocketknife, a prescription medicine bottle in a name other than Haneline's, a set of car keys, and Haneline's Missouri driver license. Garza subsequently noticed the stem of a plastic baggy sticking out of the disturbed dirt where Haneline had been digging, approximately three feet from the black lunchbox. Garza picked up the plastic baggy and found that it contained a white, crystalline substance, which was later tested and determined to contain less than one gram of methamphetamine.
After observing the items in the lunchbox and the plastic baggy containing what he believed to be methamphetamine, Garza placed Haneline under arrest. As Garza was handcuffing Haneline, Haneline stated that the black lunchbox and the plastic baggy were not his. Garza informed Haneline that he found Haneline's driver license inside the black lunchbox, but Haneline continued to deny that the items belonged to him. Haneline's person and his vehicle were searched, and no illegal or controlled substances were found.
Garza was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance for possessing methamphetamine.
Before trial, Haneline moved to suppress the contents of the lunchbox as the result of an unreasonable, warrantless search. The trial court held a suppression hearing, at which Garza testified. Garza testified that when he observed the black lunchbox, it was partially unzipped, and he unzipped the lunchbox completely to see the contents. Garza was unable to see the contents until he fully unzipped the lunchbox. Garza conceded that he did not obtain Haneline's consent to search the lunchbox, and he had no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed or that something illegal was inside the lunchbox. Further, he was not concerned for his safety because he had already asked Haneline if he had any weapons, and Haneline was 20 to 30 feet away talking to other deputies.[4]
Garza testified that, in his experience, methamphetamine users use radio antennas, razor blades, and batteries as drug paraphernalia. Garza testified that metal radio antennas are used to poke and prod at methamphetamine crystals while the user is smoking it to make the crystals burn easier. Garza also testified that razor blades are used to grind the crystals to make them finer so they can be more easily smoked, and batteries are similarly used to cut the substance and amplify the high users experience while smoking.
Haneline testified at the suppression hearing that the lunchbox belonged to him and that he never denied ownership of the lunchbox. The trial court denied Haneline's motion to suppress and stated on the record that the search was reasonable because Haneline did not have any expectation of privacy in the lunchbox in that it had been abandoned because it was not in his possession, and he left it on the ground in a public park. The contents of the lunchbox were admitted over objection at trial. Prior to the introduction of evidence at trial, the trial court found Haneline to be a prior and persistent offender based on his previous criminal convictions.
Haneline moved for judgment of acquittal after the State rested, which the trial court denied. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the sole count of possession of a controlled substance. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it did not believe probation was appropriate based on Haneline's criminal history but also did not believe "the sentence to the penitentiary is justified" and stated, "The Court is going to sentence the defendant to serve nine months in the county jail." The written judgment of conviction, however, states that Haneline was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, a class D felony under section 579.015, and states that "Defendant is sentenced to 3 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections[.]" This appeal follows.
Application of the escape rule
As an initial matter, the State argues that Haneline's appeal should be dismissed, pursuant to the "escape rule," because he failed to present himself to the court clerk the day following the trial to begin the process of preparing a sentencing assessment report as ordered by the trial court. A warrant was issued for Haneline's arrest based on his failure to contact the court clerk. Haneline did appear in court on the date and time set for sentencing, and the warrant was served on him at that time. Because he failed to comply with the order of the court, a sentencing assessment report was not prepared for the trial court's consideration at sentencing.
The "escape rule" is a procedural rule designed to protect the orderly and efficient use of Missouri's judicial resources. State v. Troupe, 891 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Mo. banc 1995). "The escape rule operates to deny the right of appeal to a defendant who escapes justice." Id. "A defendant who flees justice also loses the opportunity to seek postconviction relief." Id. The appellate court's sound discretion decides whether to invoke the escape rule after weighing whether the escape adversely affects the criminal justice system. Id. at 811.
Here, after the jury returned a guilty verdict, the trial court stated on the record:
Haneline did not contact the court clerk the morning after the trial or contact the department of probation and parole to assist in the preparation of the sentencing assessment report. The Court issued a warrant for Haneline's arrest due to his failure to contact the court clerk as ordered and for failing to comply with the conditions of his bond. Haneline did appear in court for the original sentencing hearing, and the warrant was served on him. A sentencing assessment report was not prepared due to Haneline's actions in failing to follow the court's order. The sentencing hearing was continued for one week, and the trial court relied on Haneline's prior criminal record and the arguments of counsel at the sentencing hearing. Although Haneline's failure to appear delayed...
To continue reading
Request your trial