Steed v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 2005
• Docket Number: No. A05A0400.,A05A0400.
• Citation: 273 Ga. App. 845,616 S.E.2d 185
• Parties: STEED v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

273 Ga. App. 845

616 S.E.2d 185

STEED v.The STATE.

No. A05A0400.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 22, 2005.

Amy H. Bogartz, Norcross, for Appellant.

Paul L. Howard, District Attorney, Anne E. Green, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.

BARNES, Judge.

A jury convicted Mark Jason Steed of trafficking in amphetamine, and Steed appeals.He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; that the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain the verdict; that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury regarding corroboration of an accomplice; and that his trial counsel was ineffective.For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1.Steed contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs found in his vehicle, arguing that the police lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that justified stopping his car.

When an appellate court reviews a trial court's order concerning a motion to suppress evidence, the appellate court should be guided by three principles with regard to the interpretation of the trial court's judgment of the facts.First, when a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that judge sits as the trier of facts.The trial judge hears the evidence, and his findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it.Second, the trial court's decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.Third, the reviewing court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.)Tate v. State,264 Ga. 53, 54(1), 440 S.E.2d 646(1994).

A College Park police officer assigned to the Tri-Cities Narcotics Drug Task Force testified that on February 20, 2003, he received a call from a confidential informant who told him that two men were going to buy drugs at a trailer park currently being investigated.The informant had supplied information for a month or two regarding a woman at the same trailer park location who was brokering illegal narcotics brought from outside the country.The informant had provided the name and address of the broker, as well as the identification of various people in the drug organization, which the officer had independently verified.

On February 20, the informant told the officer that a trailer park resident was expecting someone to arrive and complete a drug transaction.Ninety minutes later, the informant called again to say that two white men were at the trailer park, had just completed a transaction, and were about to leave in a gray "dually" pickup truck.¹The informant said the truck would be pulling out onto Norman Berry Road from the trailer park entrance and heading toward Cleveland Avenue.The officer was waiting in an unmarked van on Cleveland Avenue at its intersection with Norman Berry Road, and in a minute or two he saw a gray "dually" pickup truck with two white men traveling on Norman Berry toward the intersection.

A marked police car activated its lights behind the truck, and as it came to a stop, the passenger door opened slightly and someone dropped a plastic-wrapped package on the ground.The agent retrieved the package, identified it as suspected methamphetamine, and arrested Steed, who was the driver, and Chad Garmon, who was the passenger.Steed and Garmon were jointly indicted for trafficking in amphetamine.

The trial court denied Steed's motion to suppress evidence of the drugs, finding that the police officers had sufficient information to formulate a reasonable, articulable suspicion that warranted stopping the vehicle.Once Garmon dropped the package of drugs from the side door, the police had probable cause to proceed further with their investigation, which led to the men's arrest.

Steed contends that the confidential informant was "of unknown reliability," and contends that his tip was not sufficiently detailed or corroborated to warrant stopping the vehicle.An officer needs only reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, not probable cause, to initiate an investigative stop.Evans v. State,216 Ga.App. 21, 23(2), 453 S.E.2d 100(1995).

This is not a case in which an officer stopped a vehicle based solely upon an anonymous tip, but rather one in which the tip came from a known, reliable informant....[Steed] contends that even a tip from a reliable, confidential informant must provide some basis for predicting the specific future behavior of the suspect.This applies to an anonymous telephone tip, not to a tip from a known, reliable informant.

(Citations omitted.)Rider v. State,222 Ga.App. 602, 604, 475 S.E.2d 655(1996);accord, Wilson v. State,249 Ga.App. 560, 562, 549 S.E.2d 418(2001).The trial court did not err in denying Steed's motion to suppress.

2.Steed contends that the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain the verdict, because the State failed to corroborate his co-defendant's testimony.He further asserts that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the definition of an accomplice and the need for corroboration, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to submit written requests to charge on these issues.We view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the verdict, and no longer presume that the defendant is innocent.We do not weigh the evidence or decide the witnesses' credibility, but only determine if the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions.Taylor v. State,226 Ga.App. 254, 255, 485 S.E.2d 830(1997).We construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence most strongly in favor of the jury's verdict.Sims v. State,226 Ga.App. 116(1), 486 S.E.2d 365(1997).

Viewed in that light, the evidence at trial established that the East Point police stopped Steed's truck pursuant to direction from a Tri-Cities Narcotics Drug Task Force officer.As the truck came to a stop, passenger Garmon opened his door and dropped a package to the ground.That package contained suspected amphetamine or methamphetamine, and both Steed and Garmon were arrested.Neither had any money, and both lived and worked near the Douglas-Paulding County line.The GBI lab confirmed that the material in the package was amphetamine and weighed 33.71 grams.The police found an additional 21 grams of marijuana in a cookie tin beneath the driver's seat.Steed and Garmon were indicted for trafficking in amphetamine and marijuana...