State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. KA-4083,KA-4083 |
| Citation | 489 So.2d 286 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Henry T. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry Connick, Dist. Atty., Susan Scott Hunt, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee.
M. Craig Colwart, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for appellant.
Before BARRY, CIACCIO and LOBRANO, JJ.
Henry Williams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, La.R.S. 14:95.1, and sentenced to three years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The court also imposed a $1,000.00 fine in default of which an additional six months was to be served.
On June 6, 1984 between 11:30 p.m. and midnight police officers were conducting a narcotics surveillance of 1705 North Broad St. in New Orleans. Officer Frank Wicks saw a yellow Camaro drive up, a black male get out and approach the door of the residence, then an exchange occurred which the officer believed to be a drug transaction. The subject then hurried back to the car which drove away. Wicks' partner, Officer Wethern, and Officers John Johanas and Jeffery Robertson followed in two unmarked cars.
Officer Wethern recognized one of the Camaro's five passengers to be Leonard Martin with whom he was familiar through previous narcotics investigations. Utilizing their two unmarked vehicles, the three officers stopped the car and identified themselves as policemen. A female passenger in the front seat started to reach down to the floorboard area. For safety reasons the officers ordered everybody out, asked for identification, checked out the car floor and found a .38 caliber revolver. Officer Wethern asked for proof of ownership and Williams said it was his gun. After checking all of the names through the computer and discovering Williams had an armed robbery conviction, Officer Wethern placed him under arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm and advised him of his Miranda rights.
Curtis Adams and James (Leonard) Martin, occupants of the Camaro, testified that the officers threatened everyone with jail when no one claimed the gun. Both men said the officers arrested Williams after finding his felony conviction even though Williams never claimed ownership of the gun.
Williams assigns four errors relating to motions to suppress and the sentence.
The trial court stated that "[t]here is no motion to suppress that lies in this particular matter...." since nothing had been taken from Williams.
In Louisiana any person adversely affected by a search or seizure has standing to raise its illegality. La. Const. Art. I, Sec. 5; State v. Owen, 453 So.2d 1202 (La.1984); State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980).
Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment even when the detention is brief and short of a traditional arrest. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). The seizure must be reasonable, but the stop may be justified on facts that do not amount to probable cause to arrest. Determining reasonableness requires balancing the need to search or seize against the invasion it entails. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
A Louisiana law officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense and may demand his name, address, and an explanation of his actions. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 215.1; State v. Sims, 426 So.2d 148 (La.1983). Reasonable cause for an investigatory detention is something less than probable cause and must be determined under the facts of each case. The officer must have articulable knowledge of particular facts to reasonably suspect the detained person of criminal activity and thus to justify the infringement on that individual's right to be free from governmental interference. State v. Williams, 421 So.2d 874 (La.1982); State v. Keller, 403 So.2d 693 (La.1981).
We are satisfied the police had reasonable cause to stop the Camaro. The focus of the surveillance was a particular residence. Officer Wicks observed what he thought was a narcotics transaction. The man hurriedly returned to the vehicle and it drove off. Officer Wethern recognized one of the passengers through previous narcotics investigations. Wethern testified that on the basis of the activity, the belief that a narcotics transaction had been observed at the Broad Street residence, and his knowledge of Martin, the officers decided to stop the car.
Defense witnesses Adams, the driver, and Martin, a passenger, testified that guns were drawn and the situation was more than a brief stop. However, we are satisfied that stopping the automobile was clearly an investigatory procedure after which the officers identified themselves and asked for identification. In conjunction with such a stop police officers may conduct a limited self-protective search for weapons when their safety requires it. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 215.1; State v. Cobb, 419 So.2d 1237 (La.1982). The action of the female passenger in starting to reach down to the floorboard area was sufficient to cause the officers to fear for their safety.
Considering all of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable cause to check for their protection. See State v. Williams, 421 So.2d at 877.
This assignment has no merit.
Williams argues it was error to admit his inculpatory statement that he owned the gun.
Officer Wethern testified that he asked whether anyone had proof of ownership of the revolver and Williams said he bought the gun on the street but had no bill of sale. Both defense witnesses denied the statement. The officer said that after finding Williams' felony conviction he gave Williams several opportunities to retract his statement.
Williams contends he and his companions were under arrest and in custody from the time the Camaro was stopped. However, the record refutes that claim. Five individuals were briefly detained on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that they were involved in a drug transaction. The five occupants were asked to produce identification and a limited self-protective search was conducted.
An arrest occurs when the circumstances indicate an intent to effect an extended restraint upon the suspect's liberty. State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274 (La.1984). Under these circumstances Williams' arrest did not occur until after he claimed the gun, his identification was checked, and Miranda rights given.
Miranda warnings are not required when the officer is making a general, on-the-scene investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator. State v. Davis, 448 So.2d 645 (La.1984); State v. Brown, 340 So.2d 1306 (La.1976), writ denied 366 So.2d 564 (La.1979).
Where no finger of suspicion has been pointed at a defendant and where he is not the focus of an investigation of a particular crime, we are unwilling to curtail the ability of the police to investigate potential criminal activity. Such a ruling would require that the police administer Miranda warnings to all persons whom they question as to potential breaches of the law, even where the officers are in the preliminary investigatory process of determining whether any crime has indeed been committed. (citations ommitted) State v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 264, 266 (La.1983).
When Officer Wethern asked all occupants of the car about the gun no suspicion was directed toward Williams nor was he the focus of the investigation.
This assignment lacks merit.
SENTENCE (TWO ASSIGNMENTS)
Williams contends the trial court erred by automatically imposing the minimum fine without considering its suspension and by imposing an additional six months imprisonment in default of payment because he is indigent.
Williams argues that the trial court did not consider suspension of the mandatory fine as a sentencing option under La.R.S. 14:95.1. The trial court declared:
Because Mr. Williams is indigent, I know that he won't be able to pay it, so in this particular matter I want the record to reflect that he cannot be fined the one thousand dollars because he is indigent. He doesn't have the money. In default of the payment of the thousand dollars, he is to do an additional six months, and the court cost is waived in this case.
The docketmaster and minute entry state: "The fine is mandatory although the defendant is indigent."
The state contends the court did not say there was no discretion or describe the penalty as mandatory. The minute entry does specify "mandatory" and the trial judge's words could be so construed. The state also claims the court would have imposed a minimum imprisonment to be served in default thereof if the judge imposed the fine only because it was statutorily mandated.
It is difficult to determine whether the trial court was aware of the suspension of fine option (conceded by both sides but not by this court) and how that knowledge or lack thereof affected the court's discretion. Since we find merit in William's assignment relating to jail time in lieu of the fine, we pretermit that issue.
Williams argues it was error to sentence an indigent to an additional six months in prison in default of the $1,000.00 fine. Although private counsel represented Williams at trial, the sentencing transcript clearly shows that Williams was indigent when sentenced. The necessity to appoint appellate counsel from the Office of the Public Defender establishes indigency. See State v. Williams, 288 So.2d 319 (La.1974); State v. Huffman, 480 So.2d 396 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985). Court costs were waived due to his indigency and the trial court declared Williams' indigent status.
When the aggregate imprisonment exceeds the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Langlinais
... ... In reaching its decision, the court stated: ... If a defendant is indigent, the trial court may not impose a maximum sentence of imprisonment and a fine which will cause him to be imprisoned beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute when he is unable to pay a fine. State v. Williams, supra [288 So.2d 319 (La. 1974)]. The imposition of the fine and costs in addition to the maximum term of imprisonment is excessive in this case because the defendant is an indigent whose financial situation is unlikely to substantially improve during the extended period of imprisonment which he ... ...
-
State v. Harris
... ... Const.1974 Art. I, Sec. 5. As a result of Louisiana's expanded protection, any person adversely affected by an illegal search or seizure has standing to raise the illegality. State v. Parms, 523 So.2d 1293 (La.1988); State v. Garrett, 461 So.2d 651 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984); State v. Williams, 489 So.2d 286 (La.Ap. 4th Cir.1986) ... Generally, a search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional. Absent an exception to the warrant requirement, any evidence seized must be suppressed. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 ... ...
-
State v. Garner
... ... State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980); State v. Walker, 430 So.2d 1327 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983). State v. Williams, 489 So.2d 286 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); State v. Dakin, 495 So.2d 344 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ den. 498 So.2d 752 (La.1986). Here, the defendants are adversely affected by the illegally obtained statement and resultant seizure; as such they have standing to raise the constitutional issues ... ...
-
State v. LeBlanc, CR86-800
... ... The state's rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant." ... Closing arguments in criminal cases are restricted to evidence, conclusions that may be drawn therefrom, and to the applicable law. State v. Williams, 447 So.2d 495 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), writ denied 450 So.2d 969 (La.1984) ... A prosecutor should avoid remarks predicting societal costs and consequences of a not guilty verdict. State v. Moore, 414 So.2d 340 (La.1982), U.S. cert. denied 463 U.S. 1249, 104 S.Ct. 38, 77 ... ...