State v. Maddasion
| Decision Date | 18 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR |
| Citation | 539 P.2d 966,24 Ariz.App. 492 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James Lee MADDASION, Appellant. No 2621--2. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant was charged with unlawful sale of heroin, unlawful possession of heroin for sale, and committing a felony while released on bond. His motion to suppress evidence was denied after a hearing. The case was tried to a jury and appellant was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to twenty years to life imprisonment on Count I, ten to fifteen years on Count II, and one to five years on Count III, the first two sentences to run concurrently and the third to run consecutively to them.
Appellant attacks his convictions and sentences, presenting four questions for review. He contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain heroin seized in a search of J & J Auto Sales at 4812 South 12th Avenue in Tucson; (2) a remark made by the prosecutor in his closing argument constituted an improper statement of personal belief that appellant was guilty; (3) the trial court improperly imposed sentence; and (4) his sentences were excessive.
The facts dispositive of this appeal are as follows. On August 23, 1974, Agent Bunting of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad telephoned a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant to search J & J Auto Sales at 4812 South 12th Avenue. Agent Bunting, after being sworn, related the following: Earlier in the day he provided $980 to a confidential informant who had made three controlled narcotics purchases for him in the past. The informant later told Bunting he had gone to appellant at J & J Auto Sales seeking to buy heroin. The informant said that at that time appellant told him he would go to his apartment and pick up a 'quantity of heroin.' Appellant left J & J Auto Sales and returned shortly. About five minutes thereafter he delivered an ounce of heroin to the informant in exchange for the $980 and a 1967 Plymouth Fury III. Narcotics agents kept J & J Auto Sales under surveillance from the time of the sale to the time of Agent Bunting's call and all persons who were on the premises during the sale were still there. From these facts, the magistrate found probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
Agent Bunting then stated to the magistrate that he would read verbatim from the warrant's description of the persons to be searched. He read:
The warrant's description of the persons to be searched in fact read as follows:
'on the person(s) of
James Maddasion
1--Female Employee (WF 40's Pink Dress)
1--Male Employee
1--Male At Address At Time of Crime
1--Female--M-F Wht Blouse w/Blue Blue Skt Blk Hair 30's'
The warrant described the premises to be searched at '4812 So. 12th J & J Auto Sales.' The items to be seized were described as 'Useable (sic) Amount of Heroin and U.S. Currency Illegally Obtained During Heroin Transaction This Date.' After the reading of the warrant, the magistrate authorized Bunting to sign 'A. Bates Butler, Justice of the Peace in precinct #5' at the bottom.
Shortly after the issuance of the warrant, Agent Bunting and other officers searched J & J Auto Sales and the persons located thereon. Five tinfoil rolls of heroin and $980 were found on the premises. The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress these items, holding that Agent Bunting's affidavit contained a sufficient showing of probable cause for issuing the search warrant.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor stated:
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized at J & J Auto Sales pursuant to the search warrant. He bases this contention on two distinct grounds. First, that Agent Bunting's affidavit showed he did not have probable cause to believe there was heroin at J & J Auto Sales. Secondly, that the warrant was defective because it did not describe the persons to be searched with the same degree of particularity that Agent Bunting had said it did.
Agent Bunting's affidavit states that appellant said he would have to go to his apartment to pick up the heroin. Appellant reasons from this that the affidavit shows no heroin was kept at J & J Auto Sales. He concludes that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. We think this argument is specious. Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists where the facts and circumstances presented to the magistrate as within the affiant's knowledge or based on reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that seizable items are located on the premises sought to be searched. See, State v. Brazil, 18 Ariz.App. 545, 504 P.2d 76 (1972).
In reviewing a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, we will generally accept as sufficient less persuasive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adamson
...of reasonable caution to believe that seizable items are located on the premises or persons sought to be searched. State v. Maddasion, 24 Ariz.App. 492, 539 P.2d 966 (1975), affirmed, 130 Ariz. 306, 636 P.2d 84 (1981). In establishing probable cause "only the probability, and not a prima fa......
-
State v. McCall
...State v. Adamson, 136 Ariz. 250, 665 P.2d 972, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 204, 78 L.Ed.2d 178 (1983); State v. Maddasion, 24 Ariz.App. 492, 539 P.2d 966 (1975), aff'd., 130 Ariz. 306, 636 P.2d 84 The affidavit appellant complains of is an eleven-page statement by a Phoenix police......
-
State v. Lewis
...caution to believe that seizable items are located on the premises or persons sought to be searched. See, e. g., State v. Maddasion, 24 Ariz.App. 492, 539 P.2d 966 (1975). A person incidentally on the premises and not named in the warrant would not be within the facts considered by the magi......
-
People v. Paul
...valid command to search the defendant's person, People v. Hines, 62 A.D.2d 1067, 403 N.Y.S.2d 795 (3d Dept.1978); State v. Maddasion, 24 Ariz.App. 492, 539 P.2d 966, 969 (1975); State v. Dobies, 290 A.2d 663, 667 The motion is, therefore, denied with leave to the defendant to present facts ......
-
Just the Facts, Ma’am: Removing the Drama from Dna Dragnets
...v. Moriarty, 338 A.2d 14 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975); State v. Martinez, 753 P.2d 1011 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). But see State v. Maddasion, 539 P.2d 966 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975) (search was upheld where the warrant described only the sex of the individuals to be searched and their clothing); Peo......