 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jacobs4/7/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
Following a bench trial, appellant Chester Wayne Jacobs was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor and was sentenced to an aggravated term of twelve years in prison. On appeal, Jacobs contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in imposing an illegal and unconstitutional sentence by using an element of the offense, i.e., his status as a previously convicted felon, to both enhance and aggravate his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction. State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App.), aff'd, 200 Ariz. 363, 26 P.3d 1134 (2001). While his car was stopped at a red light, Jacobs picked up a handgun, examined it and pointed it toward the front of the car. The driver of the car behind Jacobs's saw Jacobs holding the gun. At the next red light, the driver saw Jacobs handling a rifle. The driver then called 911 to report what he had seen and described Jacobs and his vehicle to the police. A nearby officer spotted Jacobs's car and saw Jacobs drive through a red light. Officer Ronstadt followed Jacobs, who was driving faster than the traffic around him, to a parking lot a few blocks away. As Jacobs parked his car, Ronstadt turned on his overhead lights, drew his gun, and ordered Jacobs to get out of his car. After some hesitation, Jacobs followed Ronstadt's instructions. Having arrived at the scene shortly after Ronstadt, another officer, Van Norman, handcuffed Jacobs and put him in the back of his patrol car. He also noticed that Jacobs appeared intoxicated.
With Jacobs detained, Ronstadt and a third officer, Payette, approached Jacobs's car to make sure no one else was in it. Payette saw several rifle butts sticking out from a blanket in the back seat. He also saw a revolver in a holster on the front passenger side floorboard. Van Norman also looked through the car's windows and saw the guns. He then returned to his patrol car and read Jacobs his Miranda rights, but Jacobs refused to answer any questions. Van Norman searched Jacobs for identification and found his Arizona parole card. Van Norman called the telephone number on the card and was told Jacobs "was not supposed to be in possession of any sort of firearms."
Jacobs filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, arguing that the police officers had had no justification to stop him or to search his vehicle. The trial court consolidated the hearing on the motion with the bench trial and, after hearing the evidence and judging the credibility of the witnesses, denied Jacobs's motion. The court then found Jacobs guilty of being a prohibited possessor in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the court determined that Jacobs had two historical prior felony convictions and imposed an enhanced sentence pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604(C). The court also aggravated Jacobs's sentence based in part on his prior felonies. See A.R.S. § 13-702(C)(11). This appeal followed.
Jacobs argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the guns found in his car, claiming the officers had lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop him and, furthermore, had not had probable cause to search his vehicle. We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for a clear abuse of discretion, State v. Sanchez, 200 Ariz. 163, 5, 24 P.3d 610, 612 (App. 2001), viewing the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to upholding the ruling. State v. Riley, 196 Ariz. 40, 10, 992 P.2d 1135, 1139 (App. 1999).
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|