State v. James
755 So.2d 995, 2000 WL 216278 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who enters a State v. Crosby guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal a motion to suppress, may also have appellate review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to that motion if the record is sufficient, and the validity of the underlying probable cause and consent to search determinations will be reviewed.
Facts:
- On February 9, 1998, Officer George Wichser and Officer Suarez responded to a burglary complaint at 6039 Pitt Street, the residence of Nancy Adams, where a window was broken and items were missing.
- Henry James approached Officer Wichser in front of Adams's house, stating he had seen two black males leave the rear of the house in a green pickup truck, and came from 6028 Pitt Street, the house of Dodge Hobson.
- Lt. Edward Webster, a private security officer, was called to 6028 Pitt Street by Dodge Hobson to check her backyard due to the burglary.
- In Dodge Hobson's shed, Lt. Webster found a blue sweatshirt bulging with coins and other items lying across a chair and informed the police officers.
- Officer Wichser then observed the sweatshirt in the shed, and Dodge Hobson identified the sweatshirt as belonging to Henry James, who she employed.
- Henry James was detained for investigation, and after Nancy Adams identified the property in the sweatshirt as hers, Henry James was arrested.
- Barbara Martin, who lived next door to Dodge Hobson, advised officers that she had given Henry James permission to enter her rear yard to place a ladder to clean Hobson's house.
- Following a search of Henry James incident to arrest, Barbara Martin identified two rings taken from Henry James's person as hers.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 15, 1998, Henry James was charged by bill of information with two counts of possession of stolen property in Criminal District Court, Section "H."
- A motion to suppress evidence was heard in Criminal District Court, Section "H."
- Henry James filed several pre-trial pro se writs in the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
- On July 29, 1998, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, granted a writ in part, transferring to the district court a motion to recuse the trial judge for consideration.
- On August 21 and 28, 1998, the motion to recuse was heard in Criminal District Court, Section "A," and was denied.
- On September 29, 1998, the case was transferred from Criminal District Court, Section "H," to Section "E."
- On December 1, 1999, Henry James pled guilty under State v. Crosby to both counts of possession of stolen property pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to file a multiple bill charging him as only a second offender, and he was initially sentenced to one year at hard labor on each count, concurrent.
- The State then filed the multiple bill as to count one, to which Henry James pled guilty.
- The trial court vacated the previous sentence for count one and re-sentenced Henry James to one year at hard labor as a multiple offender, with the sentences for both counts remaining concurrent with each other and any other sentence he was serving.
- Henry James appealed his conviction, multiple offender adjudication, and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and errors in the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant, who pleads guilty under State v. Crosby specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, also preserve the right to appeal claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the motion to suppress hearing and challenges to the probable cause and consent determinations underlying the search?
Opinions:
Majority - Waltzer, Judge
Yes, a defendant who pleads guilty under State v. Crosby specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, may also have appellate review of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the motion to suppress hearing if the record is sufficient, and challenges to the probable cause and consent determinations underlying the search are also subject to review. The court first addressed the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, noting that State v. Laird allows such review if the record is sufficient, even for a non-specific Crosby plea. Applying the two-part Strickland v. Washington test, which requires showing deficient performance and prejudice, the court found the record sufficient to review James's claims. For each claim (failure to object to unsworn testimony, inconsistent statements, leading questions, and failure to ensure the State met its burden on consent), the court found no deficient performance or prejudice. For instance, the alleged unsworn testimony was consistent with police reports, inconsistencies are for the trier-of-fact to weigh, leading questions for efficiency did not prejudice, and counsel's role is to point out State's failures, not ensure the State meets its burden. Next, addressing the denial of the motion to suppress, the court found James's claims without merit. Regarding the lack of probable cause to ask Hobson for consent, the court reiterated that where consent to search is given, probable cause is not required, and Lt. Webster testified Hobson requested the search. The court considered the search of the sweatshirt, noting that if it was bulging with items, they could be in plain view. Even if not, the court distinguished a folded sweatshirt on a chair in an employer's shed from more protected "enclosed areas" like apartments or locked containers, concluding that Hobson's consent to search the shed extended to the sweatshirt. The court dismissed the relevance of the trial judge's comment on consent and affirmed the finding of probable cause for arrest under State v. Simms, as officers had sufficient facts after finding items, Adams's identification, and Hobson's identification of the sweatshirt owner. The subsequent search of James's person incident to arrest, yielding Martin's rings, was valid under State v. Parker due to the probable cause for arrest. Lastly, the State met its burden regarding Hobson's consent, as both State witnesses testified she consented and requested the search.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the application of the Strickland v. Washington test for ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a Crosby plea, clarifying that such claims can be reviewed on appeal if the record is sufficient. It also provides a practical interpretation of consent to search, emphasizing that a general consent for a property allows officers to search items like a folded sweatshirt found within, especially if it is bulging with suspected contraband. The ruling distinguishes simple personal items like a sweatshirt from more private "enclosed areas," thereby narrowing the scope of what constitutes an expectation of privacy in certain contexts. This distinction can guide future courts in assessing the permissible scope of consent searches on an employer's property where an employee's personal belongings are found.
