State v. Lawrence
Decision Date | 03 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 45,061-KA.,45 |
Citation | 32 So.3d 329 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Terrance LAWRENCE, Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Louisiana Appellate Project, by Paula C. Marx, for Appellant.
Jonathan M. Stewart, District Attorney, H. Russell Davis, Kenneth P. Haines, Tammy Lenn Gantt Jump, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
Before BROWN, STEWART & PEATROSS, JJ.
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Terrance Lawrence, was convicted as charged of possession of over 400 grams of cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(c) and subsequently sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's conviction is affirmed and the case is remanded for resentencing.
This matter arises from a traffic stop that occurred during Labor Day weekend on September 1, 2007, at approximately 10:15 p.m. Defendant was a passenger riding in a gray Honda Accord proceeding east along Interstate 20 in Bienville Parish. The driver of the vehicle, Brande Stowe, and Defendant were returning to Florida from Dallas, Texas.
During this time, State Troopers Jason Parker and Tim Gray were on patrol when they observed Ms. Stowe's vehicle. The officers could not clearly see the license plate so they began to follow the vehicle to determine whether there was a license plate attached to the car. While following the vehicle, the officers observed the vehicle cross both the center line and the fog line. The officers then became concerned that the driver of the vehicle was impaired and decided to conduct a traffic stop.
Once stopped by the officers, Ms. Stowe presented a valid Florida driver's license and stated that she was returning to Florida after flying to Dallas, Texas to meet her boyfriend's family. She further stated that she was tired and looking for a hotel to stop for the night. When questioned a few minutes later, Ms. Stowe contradicted this statement, stating that she had driven from Florida to Dallas, Texas instead of taking a plane.
Officer Parker then approached Defendant, who was seated in the passenger's seat, and observed him making a call on his cell phone. Defendant stated to the officer that he was contacting his "legal people." Officer Parker noted that Defendant appeared very nervous and was behaving oddly.
Although Officer Parker decided to release Ms. Stowe with a warning, both officers felt as if criminal activity was present, so Officer Parker requested consent to search Ms. Stowe's vehicle. On Ms. Stowe's refusal to consent to the search, Officer Parker called a K-9 unit and conducted a K-9 search of the vehicle. The K-9 subsequently alerted on the trunk area of the vehicle and a search of that area yielded approximately nine pounds of cocaine wrapped in plastic Wal-Mart bags. Fingerprint analysis later revealed that Defendant's fingerprint was located on one of the bags.
As previously stated, Defendant was then arrested, charged with possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(c) and, after a trial, Defendant was convicted as charged by a jury. Noting that this was Defendant's second conviction involving drugs, the trial judge sentenced Defendant to serve a term of 30 years' imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence.
Assignment of Error Number One (verbatim): The jury verdict convicting Terrance Lawrence of Possession of Cocaine fails to meet the legal standard of sufficiency of the evidence.
Defendant argues that, because he was only a passenger in Ms. Stowe's vehicle and did not have any cocaine on his person, the single fingerprint found on one of the bricks of cocaine was insufficient evidence to support his conviction under La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(c). Defendant further argues that he might have handled the drugs inadvertently and left his fingerprint on them since he packed the trunk of the car prior to the couple's departure from Texas.
The State argues that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction considering the totality of the circumstances which include: (1) Defendant's presence in the car where nine pounds of cocaine were found; (2) Defendant's prior criminal history; (3) Defendant's suspicious phone call to his "legal people" during a stop for a minor traffic violation; and (4) Defendant's fingerprint on a plastic bag containing the cocaine.
When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence. The sufficiency claim is reviewed first because the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981), if a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in accordance with Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not reasonably conclude that all of the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992); State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), 691 So.2d 347, writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), 701 So.2d 1333.
This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La. App.2d Cir.2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied, 09-0725 (La.12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913; State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ denied, 07-1209 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529.
The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. Jackson v. Virginia, supra. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Id. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La. 1983); State v. Speed, 43,786 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582, writ denied, 09-0372 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299; State v. Parker, 42,311 (La.App.2d Cir.8/15/07), 963 So.2d 497, writ denied, 07-2053 (La.3/7/08), 977 So.2d 896.
Cocaine is listed as a Schedule II substance under La. R.S. 40:964 A(4). Further, La. R.S. 40:967(C), provides in pertinent part:
This court has previously held that a fingerprint left on a bag containing cocaine is "obviously additional evidence to support a possession charge." State v. Clark, 33,794 (La.App.2d Cir.11/3/00), 774 So.2d 291, writ denied, 00-3511 (La.8/31/01), 795 So.2d 1209.
In the matter sub judice, Defendant was a passenger riding in a car that was found to contain nearly nine pounds of cocaine. Defendant admitted having driven the car approximately one week prior to the stop. Defendant further conceded that, not only did he have access to the trunk area of the car, but he loaded multiple items into the trunk. Defendant's fingerprint was found on the material wrapping one of the bricks of cocaine. This fingerprint is particularly significant because the bricks were double bagged, i.e., first zipped into plastic bags and then placed in plastic "Wal-Mart" bags. Accordingly, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction.
This assignment of error is without merit.
Assignment of Error Number Two (verbatim): The trial court erred in denying the Motion to Suppress the Evidence.
Defendant argues that the initial stop resulted in a prolonged and unconstitutional detention without the officers having any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. In support of this argument, Defendant contends that the video footage of the incident does not show Ms. Stowe weaving in her lane of travel. Defendant also asserts that the officers impermissibly extended the scope of the initial stop by running a criminal background check of Defendant. Finally, Defendant avers that the duration of the stop was too long since it lasted for approximately 28 minutes before the K-9 unit was called.
The State argues that the initial stop was lawful since the officers observed Ms. Stowe weaving in her lane of travel and, therefore, had probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred. The State further contends that the officers' suspicions were all that was necessary to call for a K-9 unit. The State concludes that, since the K-9 unit arrived within 2-3 minutes of being called, the duration of the detention was not impermissible.
The right of every person to be secure in his person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bell-Brayboy
...2 Cir. 5/18/16), 196 So. 3d 626, writ denied , 17-1575 (La. 5/18/18), 242 So. 3d 575 (" State v. Manning I "); State v. Lawrence, 45,061 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/3/10), 32 So. 3d 329, writ denied, 10-0615 (La. 10/8/10), 46 So. 3d 1265. The purpose of limiting warrantless searches to certain recog......
-
State v. Prince, 50,548–KW.
...State v. Thompson, 2002–0333 (La.04/09/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Tatum, 466 So.2d 29 (La.1985) ; State v. Lawrence, 45,061 (La.App.2d Cir.03/03/10), 32 So.3d 329, writ denied, 2010–0615 (La.10/08/10), 46 So.3d 1265. The purpose of limiting warrantless searches to certain recognized exce......
-
State v. Copelin
... ... Lawrence , 45,061, p. 12 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/3/10), 32 So.3d 329, 337 (citing State v. Brown , 318 So.2d 24 (La. 1975) ). 9 The introduction of other crimes evidence is governed by La. C.E. art. 404(A), which provides (with exceptions) that "[e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, ... ...
-
State v. Bell-Brayboy
...State v. Williams, supra, 39 minutes; State v. Burney, supra, 70 minutes; State v. Lee, supra, 30-40 minutes; State v. Lawrence, 45,061 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/3/10), 32 So. 3d 329, writ denied, 2010-0615 (La. 10/8/10), 46 So. 3d 1265, 30 minutes; State v. Chinn, 11-893 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/12)......