Bryant v. State, 320 Ga. App. 838

Bryant was convicted after a jury trial of cocaine possession, two counts of possession of a tool for the commission of a crime, riding a bicycle without a headlight, and failure to surrender a license after suspension; he was granted an out-of-time appeal challenging suppression and sufficiency of the cocaine-with-intent indictment.
On June 17, 2010, two officers stopped Bryant for a headlight violation; Bryant displayed nervous behavior and resisted at the bulge in his pocket as they learned his license was suspended.
A search incident to arrest yielded a digital scale, two cell phones, over $270, and 27 crack-like rocks later identified as cocaine.
Bryant argued suppression was required because Miranda warnings were not given before his arrest or pre-arrest statements.
Bryant argued the cell phones constituted innocent items and could not support a tool-for-crime conviction, and he challenged the cocaine indictment labeling.
The court rejected Bryant’s arguments and affirmed his convictions, including affirming the instrumentality theory and addressing the indictment and ineffective-assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Miranda custody and suppression	Bryant argues custodial Miranda warnings were required before statements and evidence.	State contends no custody for Miranda; pre-arrest questioning during a traffic stop did not trigger warnings.	No Miranda violation; no custody before arrest; suppression denied.
Possession of cell phones as instrumentality	Bryant contends cell phones are innocuous and cannot be instrumentalities.	State argues circumstantial evidence supports intent to use phones to facilitate drug crimes.	Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports instrumentalities conviction.
Indictment sufficiency for cocaine possession with intent to distribute	Bryant claims indictment labeled possession with intent to distribute but charged possession of a Schedule II substance.	State asserts indictment tracked the statutory offense and provided notice of the charged crime.	Indictment sufficient; prejudice not shown; no reversal for charging defect.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Bryant alleges trial counsel failed in cross-examination and in requesting a Jackson-Denno hearing.	State argues counsel’s decisions were tactical and no prejudice shown.	No ineffective assistance; decisions were strategic and not prejudicial.

Drammeh v. State, 285 Ga. App. 545 (Ga. App. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency on appeal; evidence viewed in light most favorable)
Waters v. State, 306 Ga. App. 114 (Ga. App. 2010) (Miranda custody rule; traffic stops generally do not trigger Miranda)
Hodges v. State, 265 Ga. 870 (Ga. 1995) (custody determination governed by degree of restraint rather than probable cause)
Arce v. State, 245 Ga. App. 466 (Ga. App. 2000) (custody analysis not triggered by pre-arrest questioning)
Jackson v. State, 316 Ga. App. 588 (Ga. App. 2012) (special demurrer timing; indictment sufficiency under general demurrer standard)
Pulliam v. State, 309 Ga. App. 477 (Ga. App. 2011) (indictment charging language; sufficiency with regard to lesser included offenses)
Striplin v. State, 284 Ga. App. 92 (Ga. App. 2007) (harmless error rule for denomination versus allegations in indictment)
Copeland v. State, 273 Ga. App. 850 (Ga. App. 2005) (evidence of possession of currency, drugs, and scales supports drug offenses)
State v. Wilson, 318 Ga. App. 88 (Ga. App. 2012) (indictment includes lesser included offenses; notice requirement satisfied)
Brown v. State, 299 Ga. App. 402 (Ga. App. 2009) (Miranda custody analysis and traffic-stop context)
Mitchell v. State, 250 Ga. App. 292 (Ga. App. 2001) (ineffective assistance standard)