State v. McClendon, WD 77521

Citation477 S.W.3d 206
Decision Date15 December 2015
Docket NumberWD 77521
Parties State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy T. McClendon, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

477 S.W.3d 206

State of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Timothy T. McClendon, Appellant.

WD 77521

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: December 15, 2015


Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Laura G. Martin, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Three: Joseph M. Ellis, Presiding Judge, Karen King Mitchell, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

Gary D. Witt, Judge

Appellant Timothy McClendon ("McClendon") was convicted after a jury trial in Jackson County Circuit Court of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020,1 and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. The charges arose out of gun fire at a car wash that resulted in the death of José Jenkins ("Jenkins"). McClendon was sentenced to life without parole and thirty years of imprisonment with the sentences to run consecutively. McClendon now raises three points on appeal challenging his conviction. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

Underlying Events

On September 25, 2011, Jenkins told a friend, Reginald Thomas ("Thomas") that

477 S.W.3d 210

he was going to a car wash, located on Prospect Road in Kansas City, Missouri, to kill McClendon. Video footage from the car wash showed that Jenkins surveilled the car wash where McClendon was located. At around 7:30 p.m., Jenkins was walking back and forth in the rear of the car wash looking through the car wash stalls, seeking McClendon. Jenkins left and returned to the car wash in a different car.

At 7:46 p.m., McClendon was sitting on a concrete block next to his vehicle, which was being washed and detailed by Keith Martin ("Martin"). At 7:48 p.m., Jenkins came out from the rear of the car wash, ran up to McClendon, fired his gun at McClendon, and then ran. McClendon reached into his car and then returned back into the street and fired his gun at Jenkins. Martin saw the exchange of gunfire and fled the scene. Jenkins fled back through a car wash bay and fell to the ground as McClendon continued to fire. The video shows that Jenkins struggled to get up but was unable to do so. It was stipulated at trial that Jenkins was the initial aggressor and that the shots fired by McClendon in front of the car wash were fired in lawful self-defense.

McClendon returned to his vehicle, reached in for something, and walked back to the front lot reloading his gun. He then returned to his vehicle, drove into the street, and then drove down to the east side of the car wash where Jenkins was lying on the ground. The video shows that Jenkins was trying to get up but could not. McClendon drove up to Jenkins, who was flat on the ground, and fired his gun multiple times into Jenkins. McClendon then backed up his vehicle, fired his gun again multiple times, and then drove away. McClendon drove to his girlfriend Kristie Myers's ("Myers") home and called her from outside telling her he had been shot and needed to go to the hospital. She moved McClendon into her van and drove him to Research Medical Center ("Research").

The Investigation

Jenkins was found dead at the car wash shortly after police were dispatched to the scene at 7:48 p.m. An autopsy revealed that Jenkins was shot thirty-two times. There were fourteen gunshot wounds to the head and eighteen gunshot wounds to the neck, chest, back, and right arm. Most of the entry wounds were on the back side of Jenkins's body. While at the car wash, police learned that a man with gunshot wounds, McClendon, had arrived at Research.

The First Statement

Detective Satter went to the hospital and contacted McClendon in the emergency room within one to two hours of the shooting. At this time, McClendon was not under arrest or in custody, and Detective Satter did not consider McClendon a suspect. Detective Satter was aware there was a surveillance video of the incident but he had not yet viewed it. He questioned McClendon about how he received his gunshot wounds. McClendon initially told Detective Satter that someone came to the car wash and began to shoot him but he did not say that he had returned fire. After explaining that a video existed of the shooting, McClendon then admitted he had indeed returned fire. This interview lasted approximately twenty minutes. In his report of this conversation, Detective Satter characterized the shooting as self-defense. Detective Satter next located McClendon's vehicle and recovered shell casings and found bullet holes in the car. The Detective also searched McClendon's girlfriend's van, where he located a Glock Model 17 9mm handgun with a magazine containing one

477 S.W.3d 211

remaining live bullet and an extra magazine with fifteen live rounds.3

The following morning, September 26, 2011 at 8:30 a.m., Detectives Ray Lenoir and Mark Speigel spoke with McClendon at Research. At that time, they had not seen the videotape of the incident. No Miranda4 warnings were given to McClendon. McClendon again told his story to the detectives, claiming that an unknown man had shot at him and he shot back. Detective Lenoir testified that when the second statement was taken he had no reason to believe that McClendon had done anything other than act in self-defense. A guard, however, was posted outside McClendon's room which, according to Detective Lenoir, is a common procedure where there is a shooting victim. This interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. Later that day, police viewed the videotape from the car wash. Having viewed the video, Detective Lenoir no longer believed McClendon had acted in self-defense.

McClendon was escorted to police headquarters in the late-afternoon on September 26 and was given his Miranda warnings, which he waived. Detectives Blank and Lenoir interrogated McClendon, which was videotaped. There is no question that at this time McClendon was in full custody and under arrest.

The State charged McClendon with first-degree murder and armed criminal action. McClendon filed a motion to suppress his three statements to police in which he argued, in part, that the police used an improper two-step interrogation technique to deliberately undermine McClendon's constitutional rights. After a hearing on his motion, the court ruled that the first statement to Detective Satter on September 25 was admissible, as the interview was investigatory in nature and occurred so soon after the incident and McClendon was not a suspect. The court found that the second statement to Detectives Lenoir and Speigel was inadmissible because during the second statement McClendon was in custody and should have been Mirandized. Finally, the court ruled that the third statement in the late-afternoon on September 26, after McClendon had been Mirandized, was also admissible. The court rejected McClendon's argument that the State had used an improper two-step interrogation technique. McClendon's trial was presided over by a different judge, who confirmed the rulings as to admissibility made previously by the court, except that any references in the third statement to the suppressed second statement was also ordered excluded.

McClendon was found guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. His motion for a new trial was denied. McClendon was sentenced to life in prison without parole and thirty years with the sentences to run consecutively. McClendon now appeals. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary in the argument section below.

POINT ONE

In Point One on appeal, McClendon argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his third statement to police and admitting the statement at trial, through testimony and videotape, because detectives used an unconstitutional

477 S.W.3d 212

"two-step" interrogation technique that bypassed the requirements of Miranda and effectively deprived McClendon of his right to due process, a fair trial, counsel, and privilege against self-incrimination.

Standard of Review

In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, there must be "substantial evidence" to support the ruling. The facts and reasonable inferences from such facts are considered favorably to the trial court's ruling and contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded. In reviewing the trial court's overruling of a motion to suppress, this Court considers the evidence presented at both the suppression hearing and at trial to determine whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the trial court's ruling. Deference is given to the trial court's superior opportunity to determine the credibility of witnesses. This Court gives deference to the trial court's factual findings but reviews questions of law de novo.

State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 318, 319–20 (Mo. banc 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Analysis

McClendon argues that the police used a deliberate two-step interrogation technique to bypass the protections afforded by Miranda in order to secure McClendon's statement when he was unapprised of his Miranda rights only to later Mirandize him to secure a second admissible statement. He argues, therefore, that his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Julio 2019
    ...once the suspect is subjected to a custodial interrogation." Maples , 551 S.W.3d at 644 (quoting State v. McClendon , 477 S.W.3d 206, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015)). "Statements obtained by police during a custodial interrogation not preceded by Miranda warnings are inadmissible in court." Id." ......
  • State v. Ryland, WD 79762
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26 Septiembre 2017
    ..."[p]lain error relief as to closing argument should rarely be granted and is generally denied without explanation." State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 217 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting State v. Crowe, 128 S.W.3d 596, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ). This is because "[a] trial court has broad di......
  • State v. Marchbanks
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 29 Mayo 2018
    ...facts are considered favorably to the trial court's ruling and contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded." State v. McClendon , 477 S.W.3d 206, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015).3 For ease of reference we refer to this as the "tampering case" and the prior offense as the "possession case."4 M......
  • State v. Shelton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 27 Junio 2017
    ...indicate a lack of careful consideration." State v. Roberson, 501 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 215 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ).B. No Abuse of Discretion Shelton asserts that the trial court should have declared a mistrial after Prost purported......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT