State v. Hughes-Mabry
| Decision Date | 16 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. E2011-02255-CCA-R3-CD,E2011-02255-CCA-R3-CD |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEVEN O. HUGHES-MABRY |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sullivan County
The Defendant, Steven O. Hughes-Mabry, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a school zone, introduction of contraband into a penal institution, and driving on a suspended license. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years, three years, and six months, respectively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that the possession offense occurred within 1000 feet of a school zone; and (3) the trial court's refusal to impose sanctions against the State for failing to preserve the identity of a witness. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.
Paul A. Harr, Blountville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Steven O. Hughes-Mabry.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Assistant Attorney General; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; and Joseph Eugene Perrin, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONThis case arises from two undercover officers conducting surveillance at a gas station in Kingsport on October 30, 2007. On April 9, 2008, a Sullivan County grand jury indicted the Defendant for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliverwithin 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class A felony; introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony; and driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-201, 39-17-417, 39-17-432, 55-50-504.
Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress "all evidence obtained, arising from, and incident to the stop, arrest and search conducted by agents of the Kingsport Police Department and/or the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department." As grounds for suppression, the Defendant argued that he "did not engage in a consensual encounter with law enforcement officials, nor was there a reasonable basis or probable cause for an investigatory stop or probable cause for a seizure." Following the denial of the Defendant's motion, the case proceeded to trial.
The evidence presented at trial revealed the following facts. Officers Steve Summey and Tim Crawford of the Kingsport Police Department were at the Sunoco gas station around 9:00 p.m. on October 30, 2007. The gas station was located on Lynn Garden Drive, which, in 2007, was in the vicinity of Tri-Cities Christian Elementary School.
The two officers were wearing "plain clothes" and were sitting in an unmarked police car, which was parked facing the front of the store "on the far right parking space." While they were observing the area, a gray Pontiac Grand Am entered the gas station parking lot and parked on the south side of the building, which was "directly in front of" their police car. The driver of that vehicle, a white male, exited the car and stood beside it for a short while. He then opened the car's hood, but never looked inside at the engine compartment. Neither officer observed any mechanical problems with the vehicle when it entered the gas station parking lot.
Officer Summey opined that the man appeared to be "waiting for someone," looking in the direction of the "other parking spaces." Thereafter, a purple BMW, driven by the Defendant, entered the gas station's parking lot and parked in front of the station, next to the unmarked police car. Both officers testified that, after the Defendant exited his vehicle, he made eye contact with the driver of the Grand Am. The two men then proceeded inside the store together.
Sgt. Crawford followed the men inside the gas station. At some point, Sgt. Crawford witnessed the two men having a conversation in the back of the store. According to Sgt. Crawford, both men glanced at him and then separated. Sgt. Crawford thereafter returned to his vehicle and told Officer Summey that he believed a drug deal was about to take place. As Sgt. Crawford was heading back inside the store, the two men exited the gas station. It did not appear to the officers that either man had made a purchase while inside the store. Officer Summey confronted the white male, and Sgt. Crawford stopped the Defendant.
Officer Summey testified that he identified himself as a police officer to the white male and requested consent to search his person. According to Officer Summey, the white male "was very nervous" and "shaking," looking "toward the direction of [the Defendant]." After obtaining consent from the white male, a search of his person did not reveal any drugs, only some cash in "one pocket" and a twenty-dollar bill in the pocket of his jacket. Officer Summey explained that keeping money in separate pockets was indicative of a drug transaction; according to Officer Summey, a person about to purchase drugs engages in this behavior to keep their money separate and not "draw attention to all their money." Officer Summey, having no further cause to detain this individual at that time, released him and went to assist Sgt. Crawford with the Defendant. According to Officer Summey, his encounter with the white male was "very quick," lasting "[a] minute or less."
In the meantime, Sgt. Crawford had likewise approached the Defendant and identified himself as a police officer. He asked to speak with the Defendant, and Sgt. Crawford maintained that the ensuing conversation was consensual. Sgt. Crawford asked the Defendant if had any identification, but the Defendant was unable to produce a driver's license. The Defendant gave Sgt. Crawford his personal information and told Sgt. Crawford that he lived in Michigan. The Defendant further informed Sgt. Crawford that he had lost his driver's license, so Sgt. Crawford attempted to confirm through dispatch whether the Defendant had a valid license. According to Sgt. Crawford, the Defendant became "increasingly nervous" and "real fidgety." Believing that the Defendant was going to run, Sgt. Crawford handcuffed the Defendant "temporarily until [they] determined what his license status was."
A records check in both Michigan and Tennessee revealed no valid license for the Defendant. The Defendant then told Sgt. Crawford that, although he lived in Michigan, he had a Georgia driver's license. Dispatch confirmed that the Defendant's Georgia license was suspended. At that time, Sgt. Crawford advised the Defendant that he was under arrest for driving on a suspended license, but did not inform the Defendant of his Miranda rights. At trial, the parties stipulated that the Defendant's license was in fact suspended.
Officer Summey informed the Defendant that he was going to be transported to the county jail. The officers attempted to search the Defendant's person there at the gas station, but the Defendant refused to spread his legs. Officer Summey asked the Defendant if he had drugs hidden on his person, and the Defendant replied that he did not. Officer Summey explained to the Defendant that if he brought drugs or weapons into the jail, he could face additional charges.
Once inside the jail, a more thorough search of the Defendant's person was conducted. Thirty-two "rocks" were found in the Defendant's buttocks and one "rock" was found in thebrim of the Defendant's hat. The thirty-two "rocks" were all individually packaged. Officer Summey opined that the "rock" found in the Defendant's hat was easily accessible to the Defendant and worth approximately twenty dollars. Several of the "rocks" were later tested by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, revealing .12 grams of cocaine in the package in the Defendant's hat and .62 grams of cocaine in four of the thirty-two "rocks" from the Defendant's buttocks. Based on the established weight, it was determined that further testing of the remaining "rocks" was not needed.
Also, the Defendant was interviewed once in custody. After receiving Miranda warnings, the Defendant confessed to selling drugs.
Following the presentation of proof, the jury found the Defendant guilty as charged. A sentencing hearing was held, and the trial sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to fifteen years at 100 percent for the cocaine possession in a school zone conviction; three years for the introduction of contraband into a penal institution conviction; and six months for the driving on a suspended license conviction. The court ordered concurrent service of all three sentences, resulting in an effective fifteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that the possession offense occurred within 1000 feet of a school zone; and (3) the trial court's refusal to impose sanctions against the State for failing to preserve the identity of a witness.1 We address each in turn.
When the parties first briefed the suppression issue, the appellate record did not include an order from the trial court denying the motion to suppress or a transcript from the hearing.2 This court, sua sponte, ordered the record on appeal to be supplemented with a transcript of the motion to suppress hearing and any written order on the motion, if one wasentered....
To continue reading
Request your trial