Sullivan v. State
Decision Date | 21 October 1994 |
Docket Number | No. CR-93-976,CR-93-976 |
Citation | 651 So.2d 1138 |
Parties | Eddie Wayne SULLIVAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Grady Lanier III, Andalusia, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Beth Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Eddie Wayne Sullivan, was convicted of unlawfully possessing marijuana, in violation of § 13A-12-213, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.
The state's evidence tended to show that on October 15, 1992, Deputy Leo Bedsole executed a search warrant at 510 North 7th Street in Florala. Bedsole had obtained the search warrant based on information from two confidential informants that there were drugs at this residence. When he and several other officers arrived to execute the warrant they found the appellant's wife across the street at a neighbor's house. Bedsole told her that they had a search warrant and that they believed marijuana was located on the premises. When they entered the house, the appellant's wife became nervous and told officers that there was a bag of marijuana under the carpet in the bedroom. A bag of marijuana was then recovered from under the carpet in the master bedroom. The bag also contained rolling papers and 2 partially smoked marijuana cigarettes. Also discovered in a ceramic vase in the master bedroom were two partially smoked marijuana cigarettes. Three plastic sandwich bags containing marijuana were discovered in a bread box on top of the refrigerator.
Deputy Bedsole testified based on his own personal knowledge that the appellant had been living at the residence for at least three months with his wife and two children under four years of age. Bedsole also stated that men's clothes were found in the master bedroom where the marijuana was discovered. On cross-examination Deputy Bedsole also testified that on a previous occasion a controlled buy had been made out of this house. Also, this residence had been under surveillance for approximately one and one-half months before the execution of the warrant.
The appellant initially contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Specifically, he contends that the state failed to show that he had knowledge of the presence of the marijuana at the residence and, therefore, failed to prove constructive possession.
Poole v. State, 645 So.2d 330, 332 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). See also Menefee v. State, 592 So.2d 642 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Desimer v. State, 535 So.2d 238 (Ala.Cr.App.1988).
In the following cases this court has held that there was sufficient evidence to present the case to the jury on the issue of whether the accused had knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance: Menefee, supra ( ); Wesenberg v. State, 504 So.2d 328 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) ( ); Sturdivant v. State, 439 So.2d 184 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Chambers, 522 So.2d 313 (1987) ( ); McHellen v. State, 351 So.2d 689 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ( ).
As this court stated in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781 (Ala.Cr.App.1991):
589 So.2d at 787. (Emphasis added.)
There was sufficient evidence to present the case to the jury on the issue of whether the appellant had knowledge of the presence of the marijuana. The court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
The appellant next contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs seized during the search because, he says, the affidavit in support of the warrant did not provide probable cause for issuance of the warrant. We disagree. The affidavit in support of the warrant reads as follows:
As this court stated in McGruder v. State, 560 So.2d 1137, 1141 (Ala.Cr.App.1989):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bolden v. State
...that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ; Sullivan v. State, 651 So.2d 1138 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) ; McCray v. State, 501 So.2d 532 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). This court has previously stated:" ‘The present test for determinin......
-
Money v. State
...that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); Sullivan v. State, 651 So.2d 1138 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); McCray v. State, 501 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). This court has previously "The present test for determining whether an in......
-
State v. Malone
...that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); Sullivan v. State, 651 So.2d 1138 (Ala.Cr. App.1994); McCray v. State, 501 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). This court has previously "`The present test for determining whether an ......
-
State v. Jenkins
...that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); Sullivan v. State, 651 So.2d 1138 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); McCray v. State, 501 So.2d 532 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). This Court has previously "`The present test for determining whether an inf......