State v. Robinson, SD 31757.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtWILLIAM W. FRANCIS
Citation379 S.W.3d 875
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marquis D. ROBINSON, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. SD 31757.,SD 31757.
Decision Date20 September 2012

379 S.W.3d 875

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
Marquis D. ROBINSON, Appellant.

No. SD 31757.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division One.

Sept. 20, 2012.

[379 S.W.3d 877]

Craig A. Johnston, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Chris Koster, Attorney General, Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.


Marquis D. Robinson (“Robinson”) appeals the judgment and sentence of the trial court which convicted him of one count of the class A felony of robbery in the first degree, a violation of section 569.020; one count of the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, a violation of section 571.015; and one count of the class C felony of felonious restraint, a violation of section 565.120.1 Following a jury trial, Robinson was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirty years on the robbery charge, thirty years on the armed-criminal-action charge, and ten years on the felonious-restraint charge with the sentences to run concurrent to one another. In his sole point relied on, Robinson challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress and admission of certain evidence, which he asserts was seized in violation of a search warrant. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background

Robinson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, State v. Taber, 73 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Mo.App. W.D.2002), the record reveals that on the evening of October 2, 2010, Robinson robbed the Country Mart store in Rolla, Missouri. After grabbing the clerk by the collar and dragging him into the office where a female employee was located, Robinson instructed the employees to put the money from the cash register into a bag and then forced them to open the safe so he could take the box of cash kept in the safe.2 Once Robinson had the box

[379 S.W.3d 878]

from the safe, he ran from the store.3 Once he departed the store, Robinson apparently left the hat he was wearing during the robbery, as well as the knife, in the stairwell of a neighboring building. He then discarded his black jacket, sweatshirt, shoes, a backpack, and the cardboard box from the safe in a dumpster near that building.

Shortly thereafter, around 11:00 p.m., cab driver Anthony Green (“Green”), who was familiar with Robinson from previous cab fares, was dispatched to Robinson's apartment building to pick up Robinson, his girlfriend, and her three children and drive them to Springfield, Missouri. Green recounted that he felt the situation was odd in that when he retrieved Robinson's girlfriend and her children they had no luggage, although they were clearly going to be spending at least the night in Springfield, and the children were without coats despite the cool weather. Green related he also found it unusual that Robinson exited the apartment not through the front door, but instead crawled out the kitchen window. Robinson appeared anxious to depart and was nervous overall. When they arrived in Springfield, Green dropped them off at a hotel and Robinson paid the $240 cab fare with $20 bills.

Robinson, his girlfriend, and her children then returned to Rolla the next day. The following day, October 4, 2010, Robinson paid $4,850 in cash for a used car at a local car dealership using mostly $20 bills. Robinson, who had pawned his rented furniture the previous week, then went to Rent–A–Center to pay his past due account, as well as take care of the pawn ticket and associated fees relating to the furniture. He paid approximately $3,321 in small bills. The manager at Rent–A– Center, who was familiar with Robinson, felt it was suspicious that Robinson suddenly had a new car, as well as sufficient cash to pay his overdue account. Noting Robinson matched the description of the Country Mart robber he had heard about on the news, the Rent–A–Center manager contacted police.

Officer Adam Meyer (“Officer Meyer”), with the Rolla Police Department, was dispatched to watch Robinson's residence. When Robinson arrived home, Officer Meyer made contact with him, received consent to pat him down, and discovered $1,700 in cash in the pocket of Robinson's pants. Detective Ken Nakanishi (“Detective Nakanishi”), who had been working on the Country Mart robbery case, then arrived and spoke with Robinson, who agreed to accompany the officers to the police station to be interviewed.

At the police station, Robinson was advised of his Miranda4 rights, voluntarily agreed to speak with police, and denied any involvement in the Country Mart robbery. Robinson admitted to recently spending a great deal of cash, but asserted he paid off the Rent–A–Center account the Friday prior to the robbery and that the remaining cash was from “his hustles[,]” which he later explained was from selling marijuana and prescription medication. He related the cash found in his pocket was the only cash he had and there was no cash at his apartment. During this interview,

[379 S.W.3d 879]

Robinson denied consent to search his apartment and eventually admitted it was because “he had a little bit of weed at his house and a pipe.”

Based on this information, Detective Nakanishi secured a search warrant for Robinson's apartment, which allowed the officers to search for “Marijuana, drug paraphernalia, smoking devices and apparatus' [sic]....” During the search, the officers found a bag of marijuana hidden under a hat and a glass pipe sitting on a shelf in the master bedroom. The search also revealed a large amount of currency variously bundled throughout the apartment. Once the currency was discovered, Detective Nakanishi “immediately” believed “it was the results [sic] of some other criminal activity.” In the master bedroom, in a drawer of the nightstand, Detective Nakanishi found $400 in four bundles of $1 bills with $100 in each bundle, some of which had rubber bands around them. In a purse located in the master bedroom, the officers found $725 in $1 bills with the bills being bundled with rubber bands with $100 per bundle. They also discovered $7,750 in a Country Mart bag stuck down in a kitty litter container. That currency was composed primarily of $5 bills in bundles of twenty bills with rubber bands loosely around the stacks. The officers also seized Robinson's car from the apartment and searched it.

Later that week, after re-affirming with the Country Mart employees the manner in which they maintained their cash, Detective Nakanishi made contact with Robinson. At that time he searched Robinson, discovered $1,000 in cash in his shoe, and arrested him for the robbery at Country Mart. At Robinson's request, Detective Nakanishi spoke with him in a recorded interview on October 8, 2010. At that time, Robinson related that the money found at his apartment was from the Country Mart robbery but that it was his friend who committed the robbery. Detective Nakanishi did not believe Robinson and later cleared the friend Robinson implicated.

Prior to trial, Robinson filed a “MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE: INVALIDLY EXECUTED WARRANT” in which he argued the seizure of the drugs and drug paraphernalia, as well as the currency in the amount of $8,675, “was unlawful in that authorities went beyond the scope permitted by the warrant and seized items completely unrelated to the purpose of the warrant....” On July 20, 2011, a hearing was held on the motion to suppress. On August 3, 2011, the trial court denied Robinson's motion to suppress. Evidence and testimony relating to the currency found at Robinson's apartment, including photographs of the currency at the locations where it was discovered, were then admitted into evidence over Robinson's continuing objections. At the close of all the evidence, the jury found Robinson guilty of the three charged crimes. Robinson then timely filed a motion for new trial in which he asserted, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; in overruling his objections to testimony from Detective Nakanishi and others relating to the items recovered from his apartment; and in admitting the photographs taken in his apartment. The trial court denied his motion for new trial and on October 24, 2011, sentenced him as set out above. This appeal followed.

In the sole point presented to this Court, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Robinson's motion to suppress and in admitting evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to the search warrant.

Standard of Review

“A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed to determine

[379 S.W.3d 880]

if it is supported by substantial evidence, and it will be reversed only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Askew, COA14–411.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 17, 2015
    ...of the bill matched the denomination of the ‘bait’ bill that [the officer] had given to [the middle man].”); State v. Robinson,379 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Mo .Ct.App.2012) (“[T]he police officers ... had the benefit of the plain-view exception.... [T]he incriminating nature of the money was, based......
  • State v. Mitchell, WD 77401
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 8, 2015
    ...described in the search warrant might be, and the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent." State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875, 881 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326–27, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) ). "The seizure of property i......
  • Robinson v. State, SD 36065
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 23, 2020
    ...respectively, all of which were ordered to run concurrently. This Court affirmed that judgment on direct appeal, see State v. Robinson , 379 S.W.3d 875 (Mo.App. 2012), by mandate issued on October 11, 2012.On October 24, 2012, Movant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion to vacate, set aside, or......
  • State v. Walter, WD76655
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 7, 2014
    ...I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution provide the same guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875, 880-81 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012). A search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Id.......
  • 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