Carter v. State
308 Ga. App. 686
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Carter appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, and manufacture of methamphetamine with a child present, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, suppression error, and improper merger.
- Police attempted to arrest Carter’s brother at their father’s home; the brother lived with Carter and would be present when officers returned to serve the warrant.
- A week later, officers returned at 4–5 a.m. to arrest the brother; one officer went to the back to prevent flight while others approached the front.
- Carter appeared at the door; an officer at the back observed a shed with a strong chemical odor and saw indicators of an active meth lab through a partially open door.
- Officers evacuated the home and obtained a search warrant for the premises based on the observed meth lab in plain view during arrest‑warrant service.
- The trial court denied suppression; on appeal, the court affirmed, holding the arrest warrant gave limited authority to enter the rear of the dwelling to prevent escape, and found no pretext to search for drugs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police had authority to be in the rear of the home during arrest warrant service | Carter | Carter | Authority to enter rear allowed; suppression affirmed |
| Whether the evidence used to prove possession and manufacture should merge | State | State | Vacate possession sentence and remand for merger correction |
| Whether counsel's performance was deficient regarding jury instructions | Carter | Carter | No deficient performance; instructions adequate |
| Whether counsel's elicitation of his ex-wife’s guilty-plea sentence prejudiced Carter | Carter | Carter | No ineffective assistance under the particular facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. State, 291 Ga.App. 278 (2008) (arrest warrant implicitly authorizes entry to residence where suspect resides)
- Reed v. State, 163 Ga.App. 233 (1982) (officer entitled to enter storage room to look for defendant when serving warrant)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (third party home entry without warrant generally prohibited)
- Kirsche v. State, 271 Ga.App. 729 (2005) (backyard entry requires consent or exigent circumstances absent warrant)
- Morgan v. State, 285 Ga.App. 254 (2007) (entry to back yard without warrant impermissible absent consent or exigent circumstances)
- Gravitt v. State, 289 Ga.App. 868 (2008) (curtilage entry to arrest nonresident with warrant)
- Leon‑Velazquez v. State, 269 Ga.App. 760 (2004) (absence of exigent circumstances bars entry into third party home while serving warrant)
- Schwartz v. State, 261 Ga.App. 742 (2003) (conditioning observations on proper legal grounds for entry when serving warrant)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (suppression not automatic for knock‑and‑announce violations)
- Snoke v. State, 237 Ga.App. 686 (1999) (concurrent offenses require proper sentencing treatment)
- New v. State, 270 Ga.App. 341 (2004) (jury instructions adequately inform on burden of proof and elements)
- Butts v. State, 273 Ga. 760 (2001) (relevance of trial strategy to ineffective assistance claims)