Strickland v. State
Decision Date | 25 January 2019 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1030 |
Citation | 119 N.E.3d 140 |
Parties | Elizabeth J. STRICKLAND, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: A. David Hutson, Hutson Legal, Jeffersonville, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Caryn N. Szyper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Elizabeth K. Strickland appeals her convictions of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine,1 Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance,2 Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe,3 and Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance.4 She presents several issues that we restate as:
We affirm.
[2] On March 27, 2017, Rodney Roudenbush and Kimberly Pierce rented a room at the Jeffersonvilla motel. Strickland came to visit. Roudenbush, Pierce, and Tina Hoffmeister then left the motel in a car driven by Roudenbush, while Strickland stayed in the motel room.
[3] Jeffersonville Police Department Officer Tom O'Neil was "on routine patrol doing ... hotel and motel interdiction."5 (Tr. Vol. 1 at 108.) When he saw Roudenbush leave the motel, he followed the car. When Roudenbush "made an abrupt southbound turn ... almost causing a traffic accident[,]" (id. at 110), Officer O'Neil initiated a traffic stop. When approaching the stopped vehicle, Officer O'Neil observed the driver, Roudenbush, "making furtive movements [and] reaching downward to-toward underneath the seat or uh the right-side of the seat." (Id. ) To Officer O'Neil, it appeared as though Roudenbush was trying to hide something. Officer O'Neil asked Roudenbush what he had hidden, to which Roudenbush responded "dope." (Id. at 111.) Roudenbush clarified that "dope" meant methamphetamine. (Id. ) Officers searched Roudenbush and found two bags of drugs on Roudenbush's person. Officers found additional bags of drugs in the car.
[4] Roudenbush asked to speak to Sergeant Dan Lawhorn "regarding assisting [Sergeant Lawhorn] in uh further law enforcement investigations [in an] attempt to uh help his legal matters[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 24.) Roudenbush told Sergeant Lawhorn "he had just left the Jeffersonvilla, room 28, um where [Strickland] remained and [Roudenbush] stated that there was additional narcotics in in [sic] the room." (Id. ) Sergeant Lawhorn deemed Roudenbush's information to be credible because he knew Roudenbush and Strickland to be "very close associates." (Id. ) Sergeant Lawhorn directed some of the other officers to maintain surveillance on the motel while he returned to the station to draft a search warrant application. Officer Shaune Davis was surveilling the motel room and observed people visiting the motel room but staying only briefly.6 Officer Davis reported this information to Detective Lawhorn for inclusion in his search warrant affidavit.
[5] The affidavit that Sergeant Lawhorn submitted to procure a search warrant stated:
(App. Vol. 2 at 109-110.) A search warrant was issued for room # 28 at the Jeffersonvilla motel.
[6] Upon receipt of the search warrant, Jeffersonville police officers approached the motel room where Strickland was. A young man and woman were in the room with Strickland. They were later identified as Strickland's son and the son's friend. Both were allowed to leave once it was confirmed they were not involved with the distribution or possession of drugs. However, while that investigation was being completed, all three occupants of the room were handcuffed and read their Miranda7 advisement.
[7] The State charged Strickland with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of syringe, and Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance. The State later amended the charging information to include Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine.8 Strickland filed two motions to suppress. In the first she alleged the search warrant used to obtain evidence in the hotel room was unsupported by probable cause. The second sought to suppress Strickland's statements in the hotel room based on Strickland's assertions that she was not properly mirandized.9 The court held an evidentiary hearing and then denied the motions.
[8] A conversation between defense counsel and the trial court regarding whether continuing objections were valid resulted in defense counsel stating he would object at the relevant times but did not "need to lay out each point of the argument each time it should come up[.]" (Tr. Vol. 1 at 88-9.) The trial court and the State agreed, and the trial court stated: "So, we'll we will [sic] note the continued [sic] objection and when you object object [sic] we will incorporate these arguments, this part of the hearing into the Court's Record for future." (Id. at 89.) During the trial, at different intervals, defense counsel noted his continuing objection. (See, e.g. , id. at 119 ( ), id. at 129 ( ), id. ( ), id. at 166 ( ), id. at 168 ( ).)
[9] The jury returned a guilty verdict on all charges. The trial court merged the possession of methamphetamine charge with the dealing in methamphetamine charge. The trial court identified Strickland's criminal history as an aggravator and Strickland's early trauma and the hardship to her family as mitigators. The trial court also "identif[ied] a creative mitigator that Ms. Strickland's always been pleasant when in Court[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 140.) However, it still found the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and sentenced Strickland to an aggregate sentence of seventeen and one-half years fully executed, with Purposeful Incarceration as a term of the sentence.
[10] Strickland did not seek interlocutory review of the denial of her motion to suppress but instead appeals following trial. This issue is therefore "appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial." Washington v. State , 784 N.E.2d 584, 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Our standard of review for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ford v. State
... ... were inadmissible. (App. Vol. II at 240-241.) Because Ford ... appeals following his conviction of murder, we look at ... whether the trial court erred in admitting the challenged ... portions of the recorded interrogation into evidence ... Strickland v. State , 119 N.E.3d 140, 146 ... (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied ... "A trial ... court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of ... evidence, and we will reverse the trial court's ruling ... only when the trial court abuses that discretion." ... ...
-
Blackwell v. State
...that she acknowledged them, the State did not present evidence that she understood the warning and "intended to waive those rights." 119 N.E.3d at 149 (quoting Appellant's Brief). Strickland court recognized that "an express written or oral waiver of rights is not necessary to establish wai......
- Parsley v. State