Defendant Stephen James Lombardo brings this appeal from his conviction and sentence of trafficking in cocaine. Held:
1. Defendant, a former law enforcement official with Florida’s Metropolitan Dade County Police Department, first enumerates as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search of his leased automobile, contending, in essence, that the trial court erred in finding that his consent to search was freely and voluntarily given. “On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on disputed facts and credibility at a suppression hearing must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.”
Muff v. State,
After verifying defendant’s license and vehicle registration, Trooper Ralston returned these documents to defendant and issued him a warning citation for speeding. Trooper Ralston also asked permission to search the car. Trooper Ralston testified “I then displayed the written consent form . . . and I asked him to read it, which he appeared to [do], and he advised he did not want to sign it, that I was going to search the car anyway, and we advised him we could not search the car without his permission, and with his permission, we would like to search it.” According to Ralston’s testimony, defendant reiterated that he didn’t want to sign the consent form, but verbally *441 consented to the search. Trooper Ralston testified that this verbal consent was witnessed both by Agent Dalman and Lieutenant Stafford of the Gordon County Sheriffs Department. Stafford testified that defendant stated that he did not wish to sign anything, “but if you want to search the car you can search the car.” Trooper Ralston again informed defendant that he had the right to refuse the search and that they could not conduct the search without permission. Lastly, Trooper Ralston testified that he did not physically threaten or abuse defendant in any manner in order to obtain his consent.
“ ‘Consent searches are valid (cit.) but where the (S)tate relies upon consent, the burden is upon (it) to demonstrate that the consent was voluntary, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. (Cit.) Voluntariness must be determined from all of the circumstances. (Cit.)’
Cuevas v. State,
2. Defendant also contends that the stop of his automobile based on the alleged traffic violation was a mere pretext for the subsequent illegal search and seizure. See
Tarwid v. State,
3. Defendant also challenges the legality of the search of his automobile based on a lack of probable cause. We find no merit to this contention. “ ‘Probable cause and a warrant are not required for a search and seizure conducted pursuant to consent.’
Crews v. State,
4. Defendant also contends that he was unlawfully “seized” without probable cause because Trooper Ralston would not permit him to leave after he refused to sign the consent form, and that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the evidence on this basis. Our review
*442
of the record, however, reveals that “the ground enumerated here as error was never raised in the trial court — neither at the motion to suppress [hearing] nor [in defendant’s written motion to suppress]. . . . Under our appellate procedure a reason why evidence should not be admitted will not be considered on appeal unless the reason was urged below. [Cits.]” (Punctuation omitted.)
Brooker v. State,
5. Defendant also contends that the State failed to show that he was in actual possession of the cocaine, as required by OCGA § 16-13-31 (a) (1), because defendant’s passenger had equal access to the illegal contraband seized from the trunk of the car. We disagree.
“The equal access rule, ‘as it applies in the automobile context, is merely that evidence showing that a person or persons other than the owner or driver of the automobile had equal access to contraband found in the automobile may or will, depending upon the strength of the evidence, overcome the presumption that the contraband was in the exclusive possession of the owner or driver. (Cits.)’
Castillo v. State,
166. Ga. App. 817, 821-822 (
Defendant also contends, however, that his conviction cannot stand because the State failed to show that the substance seized was in fact “28 grams or more of cocaine or of any mixture with a purity of 10 percent or more of cocaine,” also as required by OCGA § 16-13-31 (a) (1). The official State Crime Lab report, which was tendered into evidence pursuant to stipulation of the parties and without objection, provided that “[t]he 10 pounds 15.8 ounces of powder is positive for cocaine, Schedule II. Quantitation of the powder shows it to contain 9 pounds 1.9 ounces of cocaine.” The evidence was sufficient.
6. Lastly, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for bond pending appeal. Although our review discloses an order reducing defendant’s bond from $1,490,000 to $1,000,000 was entered on March 20, 1987, it does not appear of record that defendant requested a bond pending appeal of his conviction and sentence in the case at bar. Cf.
Bagby v. State,
Judgment affirmed.