 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Tart4/15/2003
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
Defendant was indicted for felonious possession of cocaine on 5 September 2000, and for being an habitual felon on 5 March 2001.
A jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine, and defendant pled guilty to being an habitual felon. The trial court found defendant to have a prior record level VI for felony sentencing and sentenced him to a minimum term of 135 months and a maximum term of 171 months.
On 24 August 2000, defendant filed a request for voluntary disclosure for all statements or summaries of statements made by defendant. On 24 August 2001, defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the State from introducing statements attributed to defendant other than those disclosed by the State up to the date ofthe motion. This motion was not brought before the trial court.
On 28 August 2001, defendant filed a motion to suppress "all evidence seized by virtue of an illegal stop, search and seizure" of defendant on the day of his arrest and "any statements made after this illegal seizure." A hearing was held on the motion to suppress on 29 August 2001 before Judge James C. Spencer, Jr. At the hearing on this motion, Deputies David Farris and Robert Parks, both of the Alamance County Sheriff's Department, testified as to the events resulting in defendant's arrest for possession of cocaine.
On 11 August 2000, Deputies Farris and Parks were conducting drug surveillance of Faucette Street, a location known for high drug activity. They observed a white four-door vehicle occupied by two males drive up Faucette Street and stop on the side of the street. A black male then approached the vehicle, walked back into a residence and returned to the vehicle after a short time. The black male leaned into the driver's side window of the vehicle and made "a quick exchange" where the driver passed something out of the window and took something else from the black male. Both Deputy Farris and Deputy Parks were of the opinion that a drug transaction had taken place between the driver of the white vehicle and the black male.
Deputies Farris and Parks returned to their patrol vehicle and proceeded to follow the white vehicle into a grocery store parking lot without activating the blue lights or siren. Although the deputies lost sight of the white vehicle for a brief period whenreturning to their patrol vehicle, Deputy Parks testified there was "no doubt" that the white vehicle they had observed on Faucette Street was the same white vehicle the deputies followed into the parking lot.
After reaching the grocery store parking lot, the deputies observed defendant and his son exit the white vehicle and begin walking toward the store. Deputy Farris asked defendant and his son to return to their vehicle so that the deputies could speak with them. Deputy Farris testified that after the two men returned, he asked them where they had been, and " hey hesitated, started telling me they had been up the street to see a friend. I asked them what street they went to. They tried to tell me, and turns out that they were lying to me because I was sitting there watching the same vehicle in the drug area."
Deputy Parks testified that he then asked defendant and his son "if they had any problem with us patting them down, searching them" and that he "asked them if they had any guns,
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|