State v. Lanos

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Citation: 14 S.W.3d 90
• Parties: (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) State of Missouri, Respondent v. Money Lanos, Appellant Case Number: ED75693 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date:
• Decision Date: 28 December 1999

14 S.W.3d 90 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court State of Missouri, Respondent
v.
Money Lanos, Appellant Case Number: ED75693 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 12/28/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Hon. Floyd McBride, Judge

Counsel for Appellant: Jason Steven Marks

Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Morris

Opinion Summary: Money Lanos appeals from his convictions for various counts of first and second degree robbery.

AFFIRMED.

Division Two holds: (1) The trial court did not err in denying Lanos's motion to suppress his written statement because he did not invoke his right to counsel, in that he did not make an unambiguous and specific request for counsel in dealing with a custodial interrogation. (2) The trial court did not err in denying Lanos's motion to suppress identification because the pretrial identification procedures were not unnecessarily suggestive. (3) The trial court did not err in denying a mistrial because the reference to Lanos's other crimes and outstanding warrant was a vague and indefinite reference to an unspecified crime, and the court promptly remedied the situation.

Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Judge

Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crane, P.J. and R. Dowd, J., concur.

Opinion:

Appellant Money Lanos ("Appellant") appeals from a judgment of conviction on four counts of Robbery in the First Degree and one count of Robbery in the Second Degree. We affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence established the following facts. On the night of March 18, 1997, Thomas Rund ("Rund"), a detective with the City of St. Louis Police Department, arrested Appellant for a misdemeanor capias warrant. At the time of his arrest, Rund verbally advised Appellant of his Miranda rights. Appellant indicated he understood those rights, and he did not ask for a lawyer.

After arriving at the police station, Rund informed Appellant about an investigation concerning five robberies occurring near the area in which Appellant was arrested. In particular, Rund questioned Appellant for about ten minutes regarding a robbery occurring the night before involving a victim named Bridgette Sinar ("Sinar"). Appellant stated that he did approach a woman at the robbery location and ask her for some money.

Subsequently, Rund contacted Sinar to request her presence at the police station to view a physical lineup. Rund selected four individuals with a similar description as Appellant who were already incarcerated in a holdover to participate in the lineup with Appellant. Rund informed Sinar that she would see five individuals in the lineup, and if she recognized one of the individuals as the person who approached her during the robbery in question, she should identify the individual by an assigned number.

Prior to the lineup, Rund advised Appellant that he was going to be placed in the lineup. At this time, approximately 1:30 a.m., Appellant provided Rund with the name of an attorney whom he requested Rund contact. Rund attempted to contact the attorney prior to the lineup, but he was unsuccessful. Later in the morning, after the lineup, Rund left a message with the attorney's secretary.

Initially, Appellant refused to stand up for the lineup, even after he was requested to do so. Thus, two officers brought Appellant to his feet, and during the lineup, they stood behind Appellant so that he could be viewed. Sinar identified Appellant as her assailant.

Following Sinar's identification of Appellant in the lineup, Rund again advised Appellant of his Miranda rights. Appellant completed a warning and waiver form, indicating that he understood and waived those rights. Appellant did not ask for a lawyer at this time. Part of the warning and waiver form included a written statement by Appellant confessing to the robberies. Appellant signed the form, which was dated March 19, 1997, at 2:30 a.m. No threats or promises were made to Appellant for completing this statement.

Subsequently, Rund conducted lineups for each of the other robbery victims, each of whom identified Appellant as their assailant.

In April 1997, a grand jury indicted Appellant on five counts of Robbery in the First Degree, a class A felony, in violation of section 569.020.¹ Subsequently, the State of Missouri ("Respondent") entered a dismissal nolle prosequi. In July 1998, another grand jury indicted Appellant on the same charges as in the prior case. All of the pretrial motions that had been heard and ruled upon by the trial court in the prior case were accepted by the trial court in this case. Included in these pretrial motions were Appellant's Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion to Suppress Identification, both of which were denied after a hearing.

After a three-day trial, a jury returned a verdict finding Appellant guilty of four counts of Robbery in the First Degree and one count of Robbery in the Second Degree, a class B felony, in violation of section 569.030. Appellant filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the alternative, Motion for a New Trial, which was denied after a hearing. The trial court entered a judgment and sentenced Appellant, as a prior and persistent offender, to fifteen years of imprisonment for each of the four counts of Robbery in the First Degree and ten years of imprisonment for the count of Robbery in the Second Degree, with all counts to run consecutively, for a total of seventy years in the Department of Corrections.

This Court will affirm the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Heyer, 962 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). 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. Id. We review the factual findings only to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and disregarding contrary evidence and inferences. Id. We give deference to the trial court in judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 408.

Appellant's point one on appeal argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial Motion to Suppress Statements and receiving into evidence, over objection of defense counsel, Appellant's entire written statement given to Rund on March 19, 1997, because the police procured the statement...