Styles v. Com.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1974 |
| Citation | 507 S.W.2d 487 |
| Parties | Robert Louis STYLES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Anthony M. Wilhoit, Public Defender, J. Vincent Aprile, II, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, for appellant.
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Thomas R. Emerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
Robert Lewis Styles appeals from a judgment entered in accordance with a jury's verdict convicting him of the felony of armed robbery and of the misdemeanor of flourishing a deadly weapon. His punishment for commission of the misdemeanor (a fine and jail sentence) was suspended by the trial judge. His punishment for commission of the felony was 18 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Styles contends that reversible errors were committed in the trial court in two instances: One, the fruits of a constitutionally impermissible search were admitted as evidence. Two, the trial judge's instructions to the jury failed to include the offense of common law robbery, which permits a lesser punishment than is prescribed for armed robbery. We have concluded that the warrantless search was reasonable under the exigent circumstances presented and that the total evidence did not require an instruction on common law robbery. We affirm the judgment.
On April 15, 1972, a liquor store in Owensboro, Kentucky, was the scene of a robbery. The robber forced a clerk in the store to place the currency in the cash register in a sack used for six-packs of beer. Two clerks were on duty in the store, and after the robbery they immediately called the police. The police were promptly furnished with a description of the robber.
The commission of the robbery, which included the elements that a man wearing a tight-fitting green jacket who displayed a small-caliber gun had effected the holdup, was communicated by regular official channels to police officer Hancock who was then on duty. Hancock spotted a man fitting the description. The police officer drove his cruiser close to the suspect and called to him to stop. The suspect ran and Hancock ran after him. While running, the suspect removed a small blue gun from his left jacket pocket. Hancock then fired a warning shot; the suspect put the gun back into his jacket and shortly thereafter ran into a motel.
Hancock followed the man into the motel and observed that the elevator indicator showed a stop at the fourth floor. By this time several other officers had arrived. Hancock obtained a master key from the hotel clerk who informed the officers that only two rooms (417 and 410) on the fourth floor were occupied. Hancock searched the vacant rooms and room number 417 without finding anyone. Then Hancock and his fellow officer, Rose, unlocked and entered room number 410. They saw the green jacket hanging in a closet. They found Styles lying on his back on the floor. They arrested Styles and then searched his person. This search produced an envelope containing currency in the amount of $420 and .22-caliber derringer. The motel-room window was open and officer Rose observed a brown paper sack down in the grillwork of the facade of the building. The sack had been torn into many pieces and was wadded up into a ball. The gun, the envelope and its contents, the jacket and the torn pieces of sack, were admitted as evidence at the trial over Styles' timely objection.
The two liquor store clerks positively identified Styles as the robber. The owner of the store identified the sack as similar to those he used in his store. He also testified that $444.48 was missing from the cash register as a result of the theft.
Styles' argument concerning the invalidity of the search is hinged on an unacceptable premise. He advances the objection that when officer Hancock lost sight of him as he ran into the motel, any right to further pursue him and arrest him without a warrant ceased. Although Styles was arrested with the announcement that it was for the misdemeanor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Reed
...Guzman v. Commonwealth , 375 S.W.3d 805, 807 (Ky. 2012) ; Kerr v. Commonwealth , 400 S.W.3d 250, 266 (Ky. 2013).65 Styles v. Commonwealth , 507 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Ky. 1974).66 Cook , 826 S.W.2d at 331.67 McCloud v. Commonwealth , 286 S.W.3d 780, 784-85 (Ky. 2009) ; Styles , 507 S.W.2d at 489.......
-
King v. Com., No. 2008-SC-000274-DG.
...96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-99, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Styles v. Commonwealth, 507 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Ky.1974). See also Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100-01, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (reaffirming hot pursuit An impo......
-
Brown v. Com.
...searching for the robbery suspects and weapons. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Styles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 507 S.W.2d 487 (1974). Whether the search could be justified on the grounds of exigent circumstances could be determined only upon the record af......
-
Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 2002-CA-001800-MR.
...S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). 23. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990). 24. Styles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 507 S.W.2d 487 (1973); Taylor v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 577 S.W.2d 46 (1979). 25. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 505, 93 S.Ct. 2796, 2802,......