Thompson v. State, No. A11A1798.

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Writing for the Court: DILLARD
• Citation: 12 FCDR 411,723 S.E.2d 85,313 Ga.App. 844
• Decision Date: 01 February 2012
• Docket Number: No. A11A1798.
• Parties: THOMPSON v. The STATE.

12 FCDR 411
313 Ga.App. 844
723 S.E.2d 85

THOMPSON
v.
The STATE.

No. A11A1798.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 1, 2012.

[723 S.E.2d 86]

Roger C. Wilson, Atlanta, for appellant.

Robert D. James, Jr., Dist. Atty., Deborah D. Wellborn, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

DILLARD, Judge.

[313 Ga.App. 844] Following a jury trial, Jimmie Thompson was convicted of burglary and sentenced as a recidivist. Prior to trial, Thompson filed a motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The trial court denied Thompson's motion. On appeal, Thompson argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the trial court erred in denying Thompson's motion to suppress, we are constrained to reverse his conviction.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,¹ the record shows that on August 1, 2008, Mother's Finest Daycare and Learning Center sat vacant and unused, having closed eight months prior. Nevertheless, the daycare center's owner checked the premises [313 Ga.App. 845] weekly and left various items stored inside, including two vacuum cleaners and a carpet shampooer. On the day in question, the owner was notified by law enforcement that the daycare center had been burglarized. Indeed, a door had been pried open and the inside was amiss with fans, a television set, and kitchen appliances running; trash strewn about; and several items missing. Among the items the owner identified as missing were a vacuum cleaner with a taped, broken handle and a carpet shampooer.

Earlier in the day, a resident of the area surrounding the daycare center observed Thompson walking down the street toward a gas station with what appeared to be two vacuum cleaners. A short while later, he watched as Thompson entered the vacant daycare center, and law enforcement was notified accordingly. Another witness encountered Thompson around this same time at the gas station down the street from the center. Thompson entered the station's store with what appeared to be two vacuum cleaners, asking if anyone would like to purchase them. He exited the store at one point and reemerged with only one of the devices, presumably having sold the other. The witness, who was also familiar with the daycare center, recognized one of the vacuums in Thompson's possession by its taped, broken handle. And when Thompson left the gas station, the witness noticed that he was walking back toward the center.

Law enforcement, having been informed that somebody had entered the vacant building, responded to the daycare center. One officer, Officer Findley, spoke with witnesses who described the suspect and what they had observed. The officer then proceeded to the gas station down the road to look for the suspect. Meanwhile, another officer, Officer Edelkind, responded to the scene behind the daycare center and encountered Thompson, who matched the suspect's description. Officer Edelkind approached Thompson and asked where he was coming from and if he would empty his pockets before a pat-down. Thompson complied with this request and removed items from his pockets, including a crack pipe and push rods.² The officer proceeded to ask Thompson when he had last used drugs, and Thompson replied that he had just spent his last $5 on drugs. Thompson also admitted to owning the crack pipe.

[723 S.E.2d 87]

Shortly after Thompson emptied his pockets of the drug paraphernalia, Officer Findley returned to the daycare center after hearing over the radio that Officer Edelkind had stopped an individual[313 Ga.App. 846] matching the suspect's description. Officer Findley approached Thompson and immediately asked “where did he put the vacuums[?]” Thompson responded that he had sold them for $5. Thereafter, Thompson was placed under arrest at the direction of a detective.

Prior to trial, Thompson sought to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement, claiming that he was in custody and should have been read his Miranda rights. But the trial court denied Thompson's motion, and a jury found him guilty of burglary. He was then sentenced as a recidivist to twenty years with ten years to serve. This appeal by Thompson follows.

At the outset, we note that after a defendant has been convicted, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.” ³ And we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, “but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” ⁴ With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address Thompson's enumerations of error.

1. Thompson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement without the benefit of Miranda warnings. We agree and, thus, reverse his conviction.

First, we note that “[u]nless clearly erroneous, a trial court's findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of the defendant's statement at a Jackson–Denno hearing will be upheld on appeal.” ⁵ And in conducting our review, “we may consider trial testimony in addition to the testimony submitted during the motion to suppress hearing.” ⁶

In the case sub judice, Thompson claims that he was in custody when Officer Findley questioned him about the vacuum cleaners and, thus, that his statements should have been suppressed because he had not been apprised of his Miranda rights. For Miranda purposes, a person is “in custody” when either formally arrested or restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest.⁷ But “[u]nless a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would perceive that he was in custody, Miranda warnings are not necessary.” ⁸ This inquiry [313 Ga.App. 847] focuses upon “the objective circumstances attending the particular interrogation at issue, and not upon the subjective views of either the person being interrogated or the interrogating officer.” ⁹

Here, testimony at both the motion-to-suppress hearing and trial revealed that after Officer Edelkind asked Thompson to empty his pockets prior to a pat-down, Thompson was found to be in possession of a crack pipe and push rods. Thompson then admitted to recently purchasing and using crack, and the contents of Thompson's pockets were placed on top of the patrol car while he was detained. Approximately ten minutes later, Officer Findley returned to the daycare center, approached Thompson as he was being...