State v. MangrumState v. Mangrum
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Kuhn, Shortess, Parro
Gregory Mangrum was charged by bill of information with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, violations оf
FACTS
On October 30, 1990, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Officers Mike Edwards and Ed Gomez, narcotics investigators with the Bogalusa Police Department, were patrolling a high crime area of the city known as “Cocaine Alley,” an area known for several shootings and drug arrests. As thе officers passed an alley, they noticed a red Mustang stopped in the middle of the alley. When the police unit pulled into the alley, the car began driving
The driver of the car was Betty Penton, a woman Edwards had known all of his life. Penton told the officers she was in the area visiting friends. She denied throwing the packеt out the window. In response to questioning, she said she did not know the name of the man who had been in her car, but she thought his first name was Gerald. She did not indicate the man had аny cocaine or other drugs. The packet retrieved by Gomez appeared to contain cocaine. The officers searched Penton‘s car pursuant to her consent, but no incriminating evidence was found. Before releasing Penton, the officers told her she would be arrested later if the substance thrоwn from the window tested positive for cocaine.
Edwards then radioed for assistance in locating the male passenger. Edwards and Gomez had not been ablе to see the man‘s face, but Edwards provided a clothing description: dark-colored hat, blue jean jacket, and dark-colored pants. Various officеrs assisted in searching the area. Edwards quickly located a man matching the passenger‘s clothing description. The man was standing with two other men around a barrel whiсh had been set on fire to provide warmth. As Edwards approached the men on foot, the men walked away at a fast pace. Edwards radioed the informаtion to other officers, who stopped the men. When Edwards arrived, the three men were leaning over a car.
Because defendant matched the clothing description, Edwards frisked him for weapons. During the patdown search, Edwards felt a bulge in the defendant‘s pocket. Edwards did not believe the bulge was a weapon. At the hearing, he explained his reasons for retrieving the bulge: “I retrieved to see what it was. Knowing the white female that was in the vehicle and the area that it was in, I assumed what it was.” From defendant‘s right front coat pocket, Edwards retrieved a large sandwich bag containing 19 packs of powder cocaine and a small cut сorner bag containing 31 rocks of cocaine. In the left front pocket, Edwards found 10 sandwich bags of marijuana and one small bag of marijuana. According to thе testimony of Gomez, from the time the passenger jumped out of the car until the time defendant was stopped, less than ten or twelve minutes had passed.
DENIAL OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
Defendant argues the police were not justified in stopping him and frisking him for weapons. He further maintains the search of his pockets exceeded the scope of a search for weapons. He does not attack the legality of the stop of the vehicle or the seizure of the packet thrown out the window by the driver.
After the passenger jumped out of the car, the officers saw the drivеr throw a packet out of the window. The driver was a known drug user, and she denied throwing anything out the window. She also gave evasive answers to some of the officers’ quеstions. When defendant was found nearby, he
At the hearing, the defеnse called Jackie Robinson as a witness. Robinson testified he, and not defendant, was the person who had been in Penton‘s car. Even if this testimony is viewed as credible, the issue is whether or not the officers had reason to believe defendant was the passenger and, thus, a possible witness or participant in Penton‘s crime оf possession of cocaine. Considering the nature of the clothing description and the fact defendant was located nearby in such a short time, the officers were justified in stopping defendant.
Upon conducting the patdown search, Edwards felt a bulge and retrieved it, seizing the cocaine and marijuana. Under the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement, if a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect‘s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity as contraband immediately apparent, the officer may seize the item without a warrant. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373-77, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2136-37, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). See also State v. Johnson, 94-1170, pp. 6-8 (La.App. 4th Cir. 8/23/95), 660 So.2d 942, 947-48, writs denied, 95-2331 (La. 2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1092; and 95-3044 (La. 2/2/96) 666 So.2d 1105. Considering the аrea‘s reputation for drug dealing, Edwards’ familiarity with the driver‘s drug use, the packet thrown from the vehicle in the alley, the passenger who had jumped from the moving vehiclе, defendant‘s evasive behavior, and the apparent size of the bulges, seizure of the contraband was warranted under the plain feel exception to the warrant requirement.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the assignment of error.
PATENT ERROR
In reviewing the record for patent error, we notice the trial court did not give defendant credit for time served. See
We also notice error in the sentence of fifty-four months imposed for count one. The sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana is imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years (sixty months) and not more than thirty years.
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED AS AMENDED; MATTER REMANDED WITH ORDER.