*1 (three v. THE STATE A89A0932, A89A0933, GIBSON cases).
Birdsong, on violation H. was indicted Appellant Clement Gibson 17, 1988, did, Act, May he Georgia Controlled Substances a the violation was tote “unlawfully subject The possess cocaine.” pаssenger’s found in the side zip-lock packets of cocaine bag of the motel where he was ar- of the vehicle he in front of had rested. se, ultimately pleaded guilty to оffense and
Appellant, pro proba- the remainder on years, to five to serve and was sentenced se, of convic- appeals, pro challenges “judgment tion. In he three (case A89A0932), tion the trial court’s denial and the sentence” no. (case A89A0933), no. and the motion evidence investigator. appoint trial court’s denial of his motion Held:
Case No. A89A0932 The well the maximum imposed upon sentence within (see 16-13-30) by limit set the offense OCGA § Lanzo v. court. legal subject by therefore and not review this sup- not err in motion did press, on evidence showed any ground argued or raised below. The 13, 1988, Hugh Brown was May Investigator that on Police Riverdale County security Clayton by called to the Inn in the hotel Hometown drug par- guаrd. they to be Hotel had found what believed aphernalia room; storage be- guest they removing in a items patron “evicted,” stay being registered cause the since room, from March had abandoned April apparently but items without was shown these paying Investigator full. residue; powder glass containing the hotel employees: two tubes white residue; and оne powder Spades playing one Ace of with white card experi- plastic on his powder short ence, straw residue. Based with white used Investigator Brown the items were He аctivity, specifically cocaine, items. ascer- use of seized the H. Gibson of tained that room to Clement registered had been Florida; Crime Lab. Tampa, he then sent seized items employee who a hotel May Brown received a call from Brown went subject indicated H. had returned. Gibson manager’s of- the Hometown Inn and confronted He time with cause for viola- fice. arrested at that by possession Georgia tion Controlled Substances Act co- although reports confirming caine: the test had not returned powder сocaine the white residue on the items seized 13 from room, items, experience appellant’s believed the residue, particularly plastic powder proved whitе short straw with *2 arresting appellant, and use of cocaine. After dis- arrest, in appellant’s pocket. covered a knife Incident to the impounded hotel, Toyota parked directly in front vehicle of believing it and contained additional contraband as indicated found, contents, knife whereupon he inventoried its he discov- bag containing ziр-lock bags pow- ered a tote of type a white der.
In finding 17 arrest of was upon based arising discovery by cause hotel of what paraphernalia, Brown believed to bе and that the incident proper, vehicle were the trial aptly reasonably remarked that since the it officer con- tained cocaine or it drugs, inappropriаte other would have been to leave it custody, particularly at the hotel and in hotel since a certain if might attach probable drugs vehicle were stolen or the (in were removed from custody) it used. We have held con- stitutionally impoundment valid the with inventorying a vehicle contents, its though even the defendant was not “immediate con- vehicle, trol” of the long so he was as a “recent of the auto- v. mobile, 431, (356 82); App. 182 Ga. 432-433 SE2d Belton, see New York v. (101 U. 453 S. 460 SC 69 LE2d 768), State v. Hopkins, (293 529). App. 163 Ga. 141 SE2d
To valid, find the impoundment necessary it the de- possiblе fendant abscond, have to access the vehicle to so as or to destroy or Watkins, supra. Appellant not, conceal its contents. was suggested, entitled to be get to the vehicle and move it allowed to a safer location removed; or to arrange say have it he was so entitled would be to give per which the access wоuld se authorize impoundment only search. The be thing reasonable done here vehicle, valid arrest was to police had no authority, and were not it required, leave at the detention, hotel. On his arrest and the defendant has no more need of it, and if there is cause to be- reasonable lieve it may In contain more of the the crime. somе accoutrements of circumstances might be remiss fail to remove it. See State, Jones v. 784). 187 Ga. these SE2d sons, impounding search of incident to a this vehicle lawful arrest Hopkins, supra. constitutionally valid.
We thus find refusal appellant’s objections no merit to to the suppress evidence. court did not abuse discretion Appel- prior plea guilty. special investigator,
request for a wit- he needed find grounds generally was request lant’s sug- Nothing was support would his defense. nesses and evidence that reveal, no special investigаtion might gested as to what such be explanation given or as to how would basis made appeal, suggestion no prejudiced without one. deprived any specific him of exоnerat- investigator denial of a As to the trial court’s prejudiced evidence and thus defense. State, see Baxter trials, in the of criminal discretion conduct State, Cantrell 561); here, or on grounds are either below No whatever shown this mat- appeal, to criticize trial court’s exercise discretion harm in ter find error or it. appeals, and relаting
We record to these have reviewed entire errors, rights of the nothing prejudicial find no to the substantive Archer v. appellant. See
(physical only). precedent J., J., Benhаm, Deen, P. concurs
Judgments concurs. affirmed. specially. Judge, concurring specially.
Benham, fully I in Nos. A89A0932 Although holdings concur with the Case A89A0934, A89A0933, I can- the in Case judgment and with No. case, agreе fully latter everything regard said with particular in I extension of the with what view as an unwarranted 82) (1987), State holdings in SE2d 529) (1982). The Hopkins, and State v. majority permissi- on that it was proposition relies those cases for the impound inventory ble to contents because appellant’s vehicle of the application of the vehicle. It Inme. phrase concerns рresent “recent case which cases, and arrested. both cited was taken from the car arrestee case, build- present parked In the car entered a aрpellant had circumstances, I arresting before the Under those officer arrived. occupant agree could not status as a recent vehicle warranted its search seizure. Jones
However, majority opinion, in another case cited 784) (1988), provides valid son, case, uphold the of this under factual circumstances arresting of- car. search ordinary in ficer testified that it was in the course of business circumstances to an arrestee’s vehicle and to purpose protecting contents for the for loss appellant Jones, Here, thereof. as in was alone and the car was premises commercial which the arrestee hád no interest. Impounding inventorying legitimate, the car and its contents were and the denial of motion to the evidence recov- proper. major- reason, ered ity’s the search was I concur affirmance Case Nо. A89A0933. 1989.
Decided November pro Gibson, se. Attorney, appellee. Keller, Robert E. District v. THE HAMLIN STATE. Benham, separate Based incidents, was convicted of possession in cocаine and of cocaine with intent to dis- appeal tribute. On he cites as error the trial court’s denial of his mo- acquittal trafficking charge. tion for a directed verdict of on the Appellant’s premised motion was on an fatal variance be- allegata probata. tween the The indictment having “with CAINE. For committed the olfense of TRAFFICKING IN CO- [appellant], day on the 9th . . . November approximately p.m., County, Georgia], at [Bibb 2:30 was then and possession grams there in actual of more than of a mix- ture with a of more than 10 of cocaine and did dis- Agent Malarney. tribute said cocaine to Undercover Bill . . .” At presented trial, appellant, the evidence that at the time and place alleged, had in 140.25 of a mixture that percent pure was 76 Perez, cocaine which he distributed to Frank an by Agent Malarney. Appellant informant used maintains *4 prove Malarney, State’s failure to that he distributed the cocaine to trafficking indictment, vitiates his conviction disagree. cocaine. We trafficking (a) (1), statute, § OCGA 16-13-31 as it existed any person made it sell, manufacture, bring Gеorgia,
deliver, into or to be actual of 28 or more of cocaine or of mixture of 10 requirement more of cocaine. There is no allege prove that the State distributed the the defendant