State v. Culver
1 CA-CR 15-0294
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Deputy Clark stopped a rental car on I-40 for following too closely; driver Joshua Habig and passenger Frank Culver gave inconsistent reasons for a trip to California.
- A warrant check showed Culver allegedly had two California warrants; Culver was arrested and a search of his person revealed envelopes with about $18,000.
- Habig consented to a search of the rental car, yielding about $17,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes, 1.5 grams of marijuana, and trunk bins smelling of marijuana.
- Justice court initially dismissed the money-laundering charge for lack of probable cause; the State refiled after Habig admitted they intended to buy marijuana in California. Possession charges were later dismissed because Culver held a California medical marijuana card.
- A jury convicted Culver of second-degree money laundering; court found two aggravators (accomplice and pecuniary gain) and sentenced him as a repetitive offender to 13 years.
- Culver appealed and counsel filed an Anders/Leon brief; Culver filed a supplemental brief raising suppression, probable cause, collateral estoppel, speedy-trial, and evidentiary/expert-denial claims. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress evidence from arrest and car search | State: search was lawful because Habig consented and other exceptions applied | Culver: arrest may have been based on invalid warrants so search should be suppressed | Court: Habig’s consent and automobile exception (probable cause from smell, inconsistent stories, rental mismatch) independently justified the search; suppression denied |
| Probable cause for money laundering arrest | State: facts (cash, drug residue, admissions) supported probable cause for money laundering | Culver: mere possession of large cash isn’t a crime; arrest lacked probable cause | Court: probable cause existed given cash, drug evidence, and admissions linking money to drug purchase (Pringle inference) |
| Collateral estoppel refile of money-laundering charge | Culver: prior dismissal should bar refiling | State: dismissal was without prejudice; new evidence justified refiling | Court: dismissal without prejudice is not final judgment; refiling permitted |
| Speedy trial violations | Culver: trial exceeded Rule 8 time limits and constitutional speedy-trial standards | State: multiple delays attributable to Culver (motions, judge changes, continuances); no prejudice shown | Court: delays were largely excludable and/or caused by Culver; no prejudice and no fundamental or constitutional violation |
| Denial of hearings, oral argument, and experts | Culver: court should have held hearings, allowed argument, and appointed experts | State: court has discretion to deny oral argument and expert requests without a showing of necessity | Court: no abuse of discretion; no showing expert testimony was reasonably necessary and hearings not required on all motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural standard for counsel raising no nonfrivolous issues on appeal)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent to search)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (inferring common enterprise from drugs and large cash in vehicle)
- State v. Reyna, 205 Ariz. 374 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Sweeney, 224 Ariz. 107 (limits on searches following refusal of consent after detention)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (standard for reviewing unpreserved claims of fundamental error)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (procedural context for Anders-style appellate brief)