T. L. S. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/07/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 CR-12-0075 T.L.S. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU 12-51748) BURKE, J u d g e . T.L.S., a minor, was a d j u d i c a t e d degree u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n o f marijuana, delinquent o f second- a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A- 12-214, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d was c o m m i t t e d t o t h e c u s t o d y o f CR-12-0075 t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Y o u t h S e r v i c e s ("DYS") f o r a p e r i o d o f year. This The appeal f o l l o w s . record reveals the f o l l o w i n g : The Birmingham P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t r e c e i v e d an anonymous c o m p l a i n t on J u l y 10, a l l e g i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e was o f a v e h i c l e and were two 2012, s e l l i n g drugs from the back that there f r o n t seat of the v e h i c l e . the seat a d u l t occupants i n Later that evening, o f f i c e r s B i r m i n g h a m P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t were d i s p a t c h e d customer, Officer who Freddy s c e n e , he saw was Lee later testified to a S h e l l was of that, the Lee Sanchez when he v e h i c l e and matched the and Sanders. a r r i v e d on also stated that the 1997 S a n d e r s was the a n o t h e r a d u l t male, Donte Mosely, d e t e r m i n e d t o be an o c c u p a n t . Mercedes as T.L.S. s i t t i n g i n t h e b a c k s e a t o f a b l a c k , M e r c e d e s S-320 s e d a n . driver identified the from g a s o l i n e s t a t i o n a f t e r a d i s p u t e arose between the c a s h i e r a one vehicle According described t o Lee, by the the black anonymous caller. Lee t e s t i f i e d t h a t S a n d e r s was o f f i c e r s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he had unrelated S a n d e r s was domestic-violence p l a c e d under a r r e s t a f t e r an o u t s t a n d i n g charge. Lee w a r r a n t f o r an stated that, a r r e s t e d , t h e B i r m i n g h a m p o l i c e were 2 after responsible CR-12-0075 for t h e v e h i c l e , a n d a d e c i s i o n was made t o have i t t o w e d . According t o Lee, inventory search t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t ' s p r o t o c o l i s t o do an o f any v e h i c l e before i t i s towed. Lee t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s e a r c h e d t h e v e h i c l e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h policy. However, a t some p o i n t , that S a n d e r s ' s m o t h e r , t h e owner o f t h e v e h i c l e , a r r i v e d on t h e s c e n e , a n d a d e c i s i o n was made to release t h e v e h i c l e t o h e r as o p p o s e d t o h a v i n g i t towed. During the search discovered in a the rear sitting. o f t h e v e h i c l e , Lee t e s t i f i e d bag o f m a r i j u a n a a l o n g w i t h 13 o n e - d o l l a r 1 Lee s t a t e d that the marijuana T.L.S. c o u l d a n d t h e money were i n s i d e the console. T.L.S. d e n i e d t h a t t h e m a r i j u a n a was h i s . contained bills c o n s o l e o f t h e v e h i c l e n e x t t o where T.L.S. was a d j a c e n t t o each other that t h a t he According t o Lee, However, L e e s t a t e d have r e s t e d h i s e l b o w on t h e c o n s o l e t h e money a n d t h e m a r i j u a n a . under arrest and t r a n s p o r t e d While the d e t e n t i o n - f a c i l i t y Lee then p l a c e d him t o a d e t e n t i o n personnel were that T.L.S. facility. completing the i n t a k e p a p e r w o r k f o r T.L.S., t h e m a r i j u a n a a n d t h e t h i r t e e n dollar b i l l s were p l a c e d on a d e s k . Lee s t a t e d t h a t a s k e d what was g o i n g t o happen t o t h e money. T.L.S. When L e e a s k e d T.L.S. s t i p u l a t e d t h a t the substance found i n the v e h i c l e was m a r i j u a n a . ( R . 4-5.) 1 3 CR-12-0075 T.L.S. why belonged he w a n t e d t o know, T.L.S. s t a t e d t h a t t h e money t o him. I. Prior First, to t r i a l , T.L.S. moved T.L.S. filed t o suppress two m o t i o n s to the marijuana suppress. and c a s h that were d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e r e a r c o n s o l e o f t h e v e h i c l e i n w h i c h he was s i t t i n g . S e c o n d , T.L.S. moved t o s u p p r e s s he made t o p o l i c e both after his arrest. the The t r i a l statements court denied motions. On a p p e a l , T.L.S. a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d b y denying h i s motion t o suppress Officer Lee's T.L.S., the search search of was the evidence Sanders's vehicle. not a l a w f u l S o u t h D a k o t a v. Opperman, 428 U.S. obtained during According to i n v e n t o r y search under 364 (1976), and t h e r e f o r e v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d States Constitution. However, T.L.S. does n o t h a v e s t a n d i n g to c h a l l e n g e the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the search t h a t r e v e a l e d the marijuana. T h i s C o u r t has h e l d : "'"An a p p e l l a n t w i s h i n g t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d as a r e s u l t o f an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he h a s a l e g i t i m a t e expectation of p r i v a c y i n the area searched. C o c h r a n v. S t a t e , 500 So. 2d 1161 ( A l a . C r . App. 4 CR-12-0075 1 9 8 4 ) , r e v ' d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 500 So. 2d 1179 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , on remand, 500 So. 2d 1188 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d , 500 So. 2d 1064 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 481 U.S. 1033, 107 S . C t . 1965, 95 L.Ed.2d 537 (1987) 'A p e r s o n who i s a g g r i e v e d b y an i l l e g a l s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e o n l y t h r o u g h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f damaging evidence secured by a s e a r c h o f a t h i r d person's premises o r p r o p e r t y has not had any o f h i s F o u r t h Amendment rights infringed.' Rakas v. I l l i n o i s , 439 U.S. 128, 134, 99 S . C t . 421, 425, 58 L . E d . 2 d 387 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 'For a search to violate the r i g h t s of a specific defendant, t h a t d e f e n d a n t must have a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e p l a c e searched, and t h e b u r d e n i s s q u a r e l y on t h e d e f e n d a n t a s s e r t i n g t h e v i o l a t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t s u c h an e x p e c t a t i o n existed.' K a e r c h e r v. S t a t e , 554 So. 2d 1143, 1148 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 554 So. 2d 1152 ( A l a . 1989) State v. J e m i s o n , 66 So. 3d 832, 843-44 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g J o n e s v . S t a t e , 946 So. 2d 903 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006), q u o t i n g i n t u r n H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 594 So. 2d 725, 727 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . See a l s o D e a r d o r f f v. S t a t e , 6 So. 3d 1205, 1226 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t p e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g t o r a i s e a F o u r t h Amendment c l a i m b e c a u s e he did n o t have a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e b a c k s e a t o f a v e h i c l e i n w h i c h he was m e r e l y v. Illinois, driver 439 U.S. 128 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . of the vehicle, a passenger); As n o t e d , Rakas S a n d e r s was t h e a n d S a n d e r s ' s m o t h e r was t h e owner. T h e r e f o r e , T.L.S. h a d no e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e v e h i c l e 5 CR-12-0075 or i n the console failed to offer establish console where the marijuana any e v i d e n c e was found. at the suppression T.L.S. hearing to t h a t he h a d an e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e r e a r of the v e h i c l e . Consequently, he l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o challenge the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the search. T.L.S. a l t e r n a t i v e l y excepted argues from the above-stated t h a t , as a j u v e n i l e , he i s rules regarding standing. He c i t e s § 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 1 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , that "[e]vidence received in allegations cite evidence against any c a s e confer standing violation illegally over i n which proceeding. App. property to However, may so in i n which the context he not establish T.L.S. s t a t u t e has been The c a s e s failed to construed to Amendment an t h a t have c o n s t r u e d § 12of a juvenile-transfer 424 So. 2d 1381 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . Crim. Those c a s e s h o l d t h a t i l l e g a l l y o b t a i n e d e v i d e n c e n o t be i n t r o d u c e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e 6 be the does n o t have See W.T.K. v. S t a t e , 586 So. 2d 850 1 9 9 1 ) ; A s h v. S t a t e , 1982). obtained on a j u v e n i l e t o a s s e r t a F o u r t h regarding do that or objection the c h i l d . " expectation of p r i v a c y . 15-213(b) seized App. may cause i n d e t e r m i n i n g CR-12-0075 w h e t h e r a j u v e n i l e s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d o u t o f t h e c o u r t t o be t r i e d as an Moreover, was not juvenile adult. e v e n i f T.L.S. d i d have s t a n d i n g , t h e search unconstitutional. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t w a r r a n t l e s s searches are p e r se u n r e a s o n a b l e , u n l e s s t h e y f a l l w i t h i n one o f the recognized exceptions to the warrant r e q u i r e m e n t . S t a t e v. M i t c h e l l , 722 So. 2d 814, 820 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; C h e v e r e v. S t a t e , 607 So. 2d 361, 368 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) . These e x c e p t i o n s are: (1) p l a i n view; (2) consent; (3) search incident to a lawful arrest; (4) h o t p u r s u i t o r emergency; (5) p r o b a b l e c a u s e c o u p l e d w i t h e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; (6) s t o p and f r i s k s i t u a t i o n s ; and (7) i n v e n t o r y s e a r c h e s . B a i r d v. S t a t e , 849 So. 2d 223, 229-230 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; R o k i t s k i v. S t a t e , 715 So. 2d 859, 861 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . " G r a c i e v. S t a t e , 92 So. 3d 806, 808-09 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2011) . I n h i s b r i e f , T.L.S. a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e a r c h t h a t u n c o v e r e d the marijuana the was v e h i c l e "was not a t 368-69. lawful inventory [ o r ] t h e e f f i c i e n t movement o f v e h i c u l a r U.S. However, t h o s e a r e n o t t h e o n l y c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n l a w f u l l y tow and impound a v e h i c l e . I n R i n g e r v. S t a t e , 489 So. 2d 646, this because (T.L.S.'s b r i e f , a t 2 0 ) , q u o t i n g Opperman, 428 w h i c h t h e p o l i c e may 1986), search n o t ' d i s a b l e d o r damaged' and d i d n o t ' j e o p a r d i z e ... t h e p u b l i c s a f e t y traffic." a 648 ( A l a . Crim. C o u r t n o t e d t h a t an a u t o m o b i l e may 7 be App. impounded CR-12-0075 "under a u t h o r i t y of s t a t u t e . " Code 1975, Section 32-5A-139(c)(3), A l a . provides: "Any p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s h e r e b y a u t h o r i z e d t o remove o r c a u s e t o be removed t o t h e n e a r e s t g a r a g e o r o t h e r p l a c e o f s a f e t y any v e h i c l e f o u n d upon a h i g h w a y when ... t h e p e r s o n d r i v i n g o r i n c o n t r o l o f s u c h v e h i c l e i s a r r e s t e d f o r an a l l e g e d o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h t h e o f f i c e r i s r e q u i r e d by law t o t a k e t h e person arrested before a proper magistrate without unnecessary delay " I t was vehicle u n d i s p u t e d t h a t S a n c h e z S a n d e r s was and outstanding that he was warrant. tow and was the d r i v e r of lawfully arrested Thus, t h e p o l i c e had impound t h e v e h i c l e S a n d e r s was pursuant the an authority the to to arrested. However, T.L.S. p o i n t s the p r e s e n t c a s e was noted, testimony a l t h o u g h the it was we the vehicle the revealed officers suppression initially that the not hearing intended t o tow to Sanders's mother d e t e r m i n e d t h a t she was find fact that in impounded. t h o u g h t h e v e h i c l e was 2 the never a c t u a l l y towed or ultimately released a f t e r i t was record, at to d r i v i n g a f t e r Sanders 2 t h e owner. inventory search was u l t i m a t e l y t o w e d and S a n d e r s ' s m o t h e r ' s name does n o t 8 the As that, vehicle, at the scene B a s e d on valid, the even impounded. appear i n the record. CR-12-0075 At the suppression follows: "When we c o n f i r m e d handcuffs, 16.) contents (R. [Sanders's] Lee t e s t i f i e d warrant, as put him i n t h e c a r was a t t h a t i t was o u r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d we c o u l d tow i t . " Lee s t a t e d t h a t , a t the time he i n v e n t o r i e d t h e o f t h e v e h i c l e , t h e p l a n was t o tow a n d impound i t . 15.) arrived Officer a r r e s t e d him f o r t h a t warrant, exact time[,] (R. hearing, The r e c o r d does n o t r e v e a l when S a n d e r s ' s a t t h e gas s t a t i o n n o r does mother i t i n d i c a t e when t h e d e c i s i o n was made t o r e l e a s e i t t o h e r . This officer Court has h e l d i s doing l e g a l l y permitted, it i s irrelevant." only that what "'[a]s long as t h e p o l i c e i s objectively authorized and the o f f i c e r [ ' ] s s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t i n doing Woods v . S t a t e , 695 So. 2d 636, 640 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , q u o t i n g H u t c h e r s o n v. S t a t e , 661 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. Crim. Hutcherson, App. 1 9 9 4 ) , rev'd on o t h e r grounds, 677 So. 2d 1205 ( A l a . 1996) . Ex As n o t e d parte above, O f f i c e r Lee had t h e a u t h o r i t y , under § 3 2 - 5 A - 1 3 9 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, t o impound S a n d e r s ' s v e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e was p l a c e d under a r r e s t . to conduct the inventory Sanders Thus, L e e was o b j e c t i v e l y a u t h o r i z e d search as w e l l . s u b s e q u e n t d e c i s i o n was made t o r e l e a s e 9 The f a c t that a the vehicle to i t s CR-12-0075 owner does n o t the change t h e t i m e i t was purpose of the c o n d u c t and conducted. exclusionary to deter S t a t e v. K e l l e r , Because search serve 822 any not the search "Alabama l a w was valid indicates that r u l e i s to deter unlawful at the police f u t u r e v i o l a t i o n s of the C o n s t i t u t i o n . " So. O f f i c e r Lee's was fact that 2d 483, 486 conduct unlawful, to in ( A l a . C r i m . App. performing exclude the the 2000). inventory evidence would of the purposes b e h i n d the e x c l u s i o n a r y not rule. II. Next, denying police was T.L.S. his argues motion officers poisonous suppress tree." juvenile erred by made to T.L.S. c o n t e n d e d t h a t he the were 15.) T.L.S. the voluntariness contend that h i s Miranda 3 he that, therefore, inadmissible (C. court statements p r o b a b l e c a u s e and statements arguments r e g a r d i n g does he the after his arrest. arrested without subsequent to that as does of the "fruit any of the raise any statements nor not r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d . The o n l y i s s u e b e f o r e us i s w h e t h e r O f f i c e r Lee had p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t T.L.S. 3 M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 10 436 (1966). CR-12-0075 Testimony a t the suppression Birmingham Police Department hearing received revealed an that the anonymous a l l e g i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e was s e l l i n g d r u g s f r o m t h e b a c k o f a v e h i c l e i n w h i c h two a d u l t m a l e s were i n t h e f r o n t Officer Lee t e s t i f i e d Shell gasoline that the vehicle he o b s e r v e d call seat seat. at the s t a t i o n matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e v e h i c l e given b y t h e anonymous c a l l e r . place during the suppression The f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e took hearing: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : When y o u how was f i n d i n g [T.L.S.] i n t h e b a c k o f t h e c a r [ , ] t h e t y p e o f c a r i t was, how i s t h a t s i m i l a r t o t h e BOLO [Be On The L o o k o u t ] t h a t you h e a r d e a r l i e r t h a t day? " [ L e e ] : B o t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c a r was g i v e n and two a d u l t b l a c k m a l e s s i t t i n g i n t h e f r o n t s e a t o f t h e c a r a n d a b l a c k male j u v e n i l e s i t t i n g i n t h e back seat o f t h e c a r . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And s p e c i f i c a l l y was g o i n g on i n t h e c a r ? what d i d t h e y s a y " [ L e e ] : They s a i d t h a t t h e a d u l t m a l e s were d r i v i n g around using the j u v e n i l e t o s e l l n a r c o t i c s out of t h e b a c k window, b a c k d o o r o f t h e v e h i c l e . " (R. 19-20.) marijuana stipulated As n o t e d , inside that O f f i c e r Lee t e s t i f i e d the vehicle. the Shell that Additionally, gas station he f o u n d the parties was located a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e m i l e s f r o m t h e a r e a i n w h i c h t h e anonymous caller had observed the a l l e g e d drug 11 activity. CR-12-0075 In d i s c u s s i n g p r o b a b l e cause, t h i s C o u r t has held: " ' P r o b a b l e cause t o s u p p o r t a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t must e x i s t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a r r e s t . D a v i s v. State, 507 So. 2d 1023 ( A l a . C r . App. 1986) . P r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s i f f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s known t o t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a person of reasonable c a u t i o n to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s u s p e c t has c o m m i t t e d a c r i m e . United S t a t e s v. R o l l i n s , 699 F.2d 530 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 933, 104 S.Ct. 335, 78 L.Ed.2d 305 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . ... "'The s u b s t a n c e o f a l l t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o b a b l e cause i s a r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r b e l i e f of g u i l t . ' " I d . ... The o f f i c e r n e e d n o t have enough evidence or information to support a c o n v i c t i o n i n o r d e r t o have p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r arrest. Only a p r o b a b i l i t y , not a prima facie showing, of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y i s the s t a n d a r d of probable cause. S t o n e v. S t a t e , 501 So. 2d 562 ( A l a . C r . App. 1986).'" State v. Montgomery, Dixon 968 v. So. 2d State, 543, 588 548 So. (Ala. Crim. 2d 903, 906 App. 2006), quoting 1991). A t t h e t i m e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d T.L.S.'s m o t i o n t o suppress h i s p o s t - a r r e s t s t a t e m e n t s , i t had the evidence before i t : j u v e n i l e was (Ala. following the p o l i c e had r e c e i v e d a t i p t h a t a b l a c k s e l l i n g drugs from the back s e a t of a v e h i c l e and t h a t two a d u l t b l a c k m a l e s were i n t h e f r o n t s e a t ; O f f i c e r Lee observed T.L.S., a black juvenile, i n the back seat of v e h i c l e t h a t matched the c a l l e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n ; the v e h i c l e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e m i l e s f r o m where t h e c a l l e r h a d the alleged drug activity; two 12 adult a was observed b l a c k m a l e s were w i t h CR-12-0075 T.L.S.; and marijuana B a s e d on t h o s e to believe was place inside the v e h i c l e . f a c t s , i t was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e f o r O f f i c e r Lee that T.L.S. h a d b e e n s e l l i n g back seat of the v e h i c l e . to discovered marijuana A c c o r d i n g l y , he h a d p r o b a b l e T.L.S. u n d e r a r r e s t , a n d any s u b s e q u e n t were n o t f r u i t s from t h e cause statements o f an u n l a w f u l a r r e s t . III. Next, T.L.S. argues that s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support T.L.S. argues reasonable marijuana that doubt the that the State his conviction. State he failed to present Specifically, prove beyond possessed a the t h a t was f o u n d i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e . judge principles to constructively Because t h i s i s a j u v e n i l e matter, court failed i s the t r i e r of fact, i n which the j u v e n i l e we keep the f o l l o w i n g i n mind: "Where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r e tenus in a nonjury case, a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on issues of f a c t ; i t s determination will n o t be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against the g r e a t weight of the evidence. Odom v. H u l l , 658 So. 2d 442 ( A l a . 1995) . However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f Z o n i n g A d j u s t m e n t o f t h e C i t y o f M o b i l e , 636 So. 2d 415 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " 13 CR-12-0075 Ex p a r t e Agee, 669 So. 2 d 102, 104 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . See R.L.L. v . S t a t e , 564 So. 2d 474, 476 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ; State, 552 So. 2d 178, 180 ( A l a . Crim. C.D.U. v . App. 1989) ("When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n must be given every reasonable presumption its finding it was a n d we w i l l not overturn ' i f i t was s u p p o r t e d b y c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e u n l e s s palpably Middleton, 519 wrong.' So. 2d Department 540 of Human ( A l a . C i v . App. Res. v. 1987)."). Furthermore, " ' S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s t h a t an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f d e l i n q u e n c y be s u p p o r t e d b y "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on c o m p e t e n t , m a t e r i a l [ , ] a n d r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . " The c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s and t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s o f testimony i n delinquency proceedings i s f o r the t r i e r of f a c t t o determine. C.T.L. v . S t a t e , 599 So. 2 d 94 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . Furthermore, i n r e s o l v i n g questions of s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence, t h i s c o u r t must v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most favorable to the state. I d . ' " R.B.H. v . S t a t e , 762 So. 2d 382, 383 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g A.A.G. v . S t a t e , 668 So. 2d 122, 124 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995). As n o t e d , T.L.S. was c h a r g e d w i t h s e c o n d - d e g r e e u n l a w f u l possession of marijuana, a violation o f § 13A-12-214, Ala. Code 1975. "A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n 14 CR-12-0075 of marihuana i n the second degree a u t h o r i z e d , he p o s s e s s e s m a r i h u a n a § 13A-12-214(a), A l a . Code T.L.S. was n o t i n a c t u a l i f , except as o t h e r w i s e f o r h i s p e r s o n a l use o n l y . " 1975. I t was u n d i s p u t e d that possession of the marijuana. The e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e m a r i j u a n a was f o u n d i n t h e r e a r c o n s o l e a d j a c e n t t o where T.L.S. was s i t t i n g . Thus, t h e S t a t e h a d t o p r o v e t h a t T.L.S. was i n c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e marijuana. This Court has held that i n order "[t]o establish c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n , t h e s t a t e must show t h a t t h e a c c u s e d had dominion and c o n t r o l o f t h e i l l e g a l s u b s t a n c e i t s e l f o r o f the p r e m i s e s on w h i c h t h e s u b s t a n c e was f o u n d . " State, 496 So. 2d 100, 103 ( A l a . Crim. H a m i l t o n v. App. Furthermore, "'"When c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n i s r e l i e d on, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must a l s o p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t t h e a c c u s e d had knowledge o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s . C a m p b e l l v . S t a t e , [439 So. 2 d 718 ( A l a . Cr. App.), r e v ' d on o t h e r grounds, 439 So. 2 d 723 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ] ; Y a r b r o u g h v. S t a t e , 405 So. 2d 721 ( A l a . Cr. A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 405 So. 2 d [725] (Ala. 1981). This knowledge may be inferred from the accused's exclusive p o s s e s s i o n , ownership, and c o n t r o l o f t h e premises. Temple v. S t a t e , 366 So. 2d 740 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . When t h e a c c u s e d i s 15 1986) . CR-12-0075 not in exclusive possession of the p r e m i s e s , h o w e v e r , t h i s k n o w l e d g e may n o t be inferred unless there are other circumstances tending to buttress this inference. K o r r e c k t v. S t a t e , 507 So. 2d 558 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ; Temple v. S t a t e , [366 So. 2d a t 7 4 3 ] . W h i l e n o n - e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n may r a i s e a s u s p i c i o n t h a t a l l the occupants had knowledge of the c o n t r a b a n d f o u n d , a mere s u s p i c i o n i s n o t enough. Some e v i d e n c e t h a t connects a defendant w i t h the contraband i s r e q u i r e d . G r u b b s v. S t a t e , 462 So. 2d 995, ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ; Temple v. S t a t e . " ' " P o s e y v. S t a t e , 736 So. 2d 656, 658 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g R o b i n e t t e v. S t a t e , 531 So. 2d 682, 686 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 531 So. 2d 697 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . "The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s has s t a t e d t h e i n d i c i a t h a t w i l l provide the l e g a l l y necessary connection t o prove c o n s t r u c t i v e possession: " ' I n Temple v. S t a t e , 366 So. 2d 7 4 0 [ , 743] ( A l a . C r . App. 1978), t h i s court provided a nonexclusive list of circumstances that may establish a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a d e f e n d a n t and t h e contraband found on the defendant's p r o p e r t y when t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t i n e x c l u s i v e possession of the premises. "'"While the kinds of c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h may p r o v i d e a c o n n e c t i o n between a d e f e n d a n t and t h e c o n t r a b a n d a r e u n l i m i t e d and w i l l n a t u r a l l y d e p e n d on t h e f a c t s of each p a r t i c u l a r case, [Emile F. Short, Annotation, Conviction of Possession of I l l i c i t Drugs Found i n P r e m i s e s 16 CR-12-0075 of Which Defendant Was Nonexclusive Possession,] A.L.R.3d 948 (1974), i t g e n e r a l l y been s t a t e d t h a t : "'"'The kinds of circumstances which p r o v i d e such c o n n e c t i o n are: (1) e v i d e n c e t h a t excludes a l l other possible possessors; (2) e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l po s s e s s i o n ; (3) evidence that the d e f e n d a n t had substantial control over the particular place where the contraband was found; (4) a d m i s s i o n s o f t h e defendant that provide t h e n e c e s s a r y connection, which includes both verbal a d m i s s i o n s and conduct that evidences a consciousness of g u i l t when t h e d e f e n d a n t i s confronted with the possibility that an illicit drug will be found; (5) evidence that debris of the c o n t r a b a n d was f o u n d on the defendant's person or with h i s personal effects; (6) e v i d e n c e which shows t h a t t h e defendant, a t the time of the arrest, had either used the contraband very s h o r t l y 17 in 56 has CR-12-0075 before, o r was u n d e r its influence.'"'" Ex parte Tiller, proximity to 796 So. 2d 310, 312-13 the controlled support a c o n v i c t i o n . In the possession Thus, present a At case, T.L.S. was not in exclusive conviction, the State was found. required between O f f i c e r Lee t e s t i f i e d to the f o l l o w i n g : the p o l i c e r e c e i v e d a t i p t h a t a j u v e n i l e was s e l l i n g d r u g s back seat the front Lee o b s e r v e d T.L.S. v e h i c l e t h a t m a t c h e d t h e anonymous i n the back seat of a c a l l e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n ; the v e h i c l e was at a Shell gasoline s t a t i o n approximately miles where observed activity; two a d u l t the caller m a l e s were w i t h s t a t i o n ; m a r i j u a n a was d i s c o v e r e d vehicle, adjacent to 13 on i t . That the T.L.S. bills; three alleged at the and drug gasoline i n the rear console one-dollar s i t t i n g next t o the console elbow from o f a v e h i c l e a n d t h a t two a d u l t m a l e s were i n seat; from to marijuana. trial, the to I d . a t 313. a d d i t i o n a l evidence to e s t a b l i s h a connection T.L.S. a n d t h e Mere i s insufficient o f t h e v e h i c l e i n w h i c h t h e m a r i j u a n a was to support present substance ( A l a . 2001). of the T.L.S. was so t h a t he c o u l d have r e s t e d h i s evidence 18 suggests that T.L.S. "had CR-12-0075 substantial control contraband was Additionally, that over found." State, that we evidence hold that claimed where the at 743. t h e 13 d o l l a r bills b e l o n g e d t o him. That 366 that i n the console admission f u r t h e r serves Viewing particular Temple, T.L.S. l a t e r were d i s c o v e r e d the place So. 2d t o c o n n e c t T.L.S. t o t h e i n the l i g h t i t presented most marijuana. favorable sufficient to the evidence e s t a b l i s h t h a t T.L.S. c o n s t r u c t i v e l y p o s s e s s e d t h e to marijuana. IV. Finally, T.L.S. argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e court d i d not have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o commit h i m t o t h e c u s t o d y o f DYS f o r one year. a T.L.S. p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t t h a t he was n o t a d j u d i c a t e d "serious 1975. 4 juvenile offender" Therefore, c o m m i t t e d t o DYS parte he u n d e r § 12-15-219, A l a . Code argues, he f o r a determinate period. R.E.C., 678 So. 2d 1041, 1045 Supreme C o u r t should (Ala. not have However, been i n Ex 1995), t h e Alabama held: S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 1 9 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s j u v e n i l e s who have b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d d e l i n q u e n t f o r certain serious c r i m e s t o "be c o m m i t t e d t o t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Y o u t h S e r v i c e s , where he o r she s h a l l r e m a i n f o r a minimum o f one y e a r . " I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t T.L.S. was n o t a d j u d i c a t e d as a s e r i o u s j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . 4 19 CR-12-0075 "We conclude, therefore, t h a t an order of commitment f o r a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d does n o t o f f e n d t h e [ J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e ] A c t , e v e n t h o u g h t h e j u v e n i l e has not been a d j u d i c a t e d a s e r i o u s j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e o r d e r i s a c c o m p a n i e d by s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and a r e a s o n e d a n a l y s i s as t o how the determinate p e r i o d i s c a l c u l a t e d to b e n e f i t the j u v e n i l e or to f u r t h e r h i s or her r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ; and p r o v i d e d , f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s i n t e n t t o i n c o r p o r a t e i t s order i n t o the [ I n d i v i d u a l S e r v i c e ] Plan p l a i n l y appears i n the o r d e r . " Thus, t h e juvenile f a c t t h a t T.L.S. was offender d i d not o r d e r i n g t h a t he be not preclude adjudicated the as a serious j u v e n i l e court committed f o r a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of from time. I n h i s b r i e f , T.L.S. c o n c e d e s t h a t w h i l e R.E.C., as w e l l as B.W. v. State, 834 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), a u t h o r i z e s a d e t e r m i n a t e commitment " i n c e r t a i n circumstances" (T.L.S.'s authorizes determinate brief, 42), neither opinion commitment f o r a m i s d e m e a n o r . case e x p r e s s l y 2d at f o r b i d s s u c h a commitment. 989 So. 1181, 1182 was adjudicated delinquent DYS f o r a p e r i o d o f one unlawfully breaking and ( A l a . C r i m . App. and was However, I n T.C. v. 2007), the neither State, appellant committed to the custody of y e a r " b a s e d on u n d e r l y i n g charges e n t e r i n g a v e h i c l e , a v i o l a t i o n of 1 3 A - 8 - 1 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, and c a r r y i n g a p i s t o l without l i c e n s e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-11-73, A l a . Code 1975." 20 a of § a Neither CR-12-0075 o f t h o s e a d j u d i c a t i o n s w o u l d have q u a l i f i e d t h e a serious 1975. j u v e n i l e offender However, t h i s court's We under § 12-15-219(a), A l a . Court u l t i m a t e l y a f f i r m e d the as Code juvenile sentence. initially committing the remanded t h e c a s e i n T.C. appellant r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t out order appellant to DYS i n R.E.C. did because the not I n T.C., comply order with the the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s stated: " ' C u s t o d y i s removed f r o m p a r e n t / g u a r d i a n and p l a c e d w i t h Alabama Department of Youth S e r v i c e s (DYS) f o r a p e r i o d o f one y e a r . S a i d commitment i s necessary for c h i l d ' s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Restitution i s reserved. "'[Parole Officer] shall maintain regular c o n t a c t . DYS s h a l l p r o v i d e m o n t h l y r e p o r t s t o t h e Court. C o u r t f i n d s t h a t due to c h i l d having r e c e i v e d s e r v i c e s s i n c e t h e age o f 13 y e a r s and t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e o f f e n s e , one y e a r commitment i s appropriate. " ' C o u r t recommends m e n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t m e n t vocational training.'" 989 So. court 2d at d i d not 1182-83. include This Court h e l d specific f i n d i n g s of i n c l u d e a r e a s o n e d a n a l y s i s as t o how was c a l c u l a t e d to rehabilitation. benefit the that "the and juvenile f a c t and the determinate appellant or to did not period further his I t a l s o d i d not p l a i n l y evidence i t s i n t e n t 21 CR-12-0075 to incorporate 1183. i t s order into DYS's s e r v i c e p l a n . " T.L.S. a r g u e s t h a t t h e o r d e r similarly deficient. The order We committing him Id. at t o DYS is agree. i n the present case s t a t e s : " C u s t o d y i s removed f r o m p a r e n t / g u a r d i a n and p l a c e d w i t h Alabama Department of Youth S e r v i c e s (DYS) f o r one (1) y e a r as he has b e e n f o u n d t o be unamenable t o t r e a t m e n t . DYS i s authorized to e x e r c i s e t h e p o w e r s l i s t e d i n §44-1-33, Code o f A l a b a m a , as amended. "DYS i s a u t h o r i z e d t o p l a c e c h i l d i n g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r r e s t r i c t i v e environment according to i t s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program. DYS i s authorized and d i r e c t e d t o o b t a i n s u c h p h y s i c a l t e s t i n g and to o b t a i n t h e r e s u l t s t h e r e o f as i t deems a d v i s a b l e . DYS is authorized and directed to implement procedures for identifying, evaluating, and d e t e r m i n i n g the e l i g i b i l i t y of s t u d e n t s i n need of s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s as s p e c i f i e d i n A l a b a m a A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code, C h a p t e r 290-080-090, S p e c i a l Programs I . " A f t e r a r g u m e n t s and t h e t a k i n g o f t e s t i m o n y , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e c h i l d i s unamenable t o treatment. " ¢ DYS to provide [ P a r o l e O f f i c e r ] and A t t o r n e y w i t h u p d a t e on c h i l d ' s progress e v e r y 30 d a y s . " ¢ A t t o r n e y to provide the Court with c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s / s t a t u s a f t e r s i x months. " ¢ DYS t o e n s u r e c h i l d r e c e i v e s e d u c a t i o n a l placement and/or a s s i s t a n c e . " 22 CR-12-0075 (C. 47.) Like the order case d i d not i n c l u d e "include was i n T.C., "specific the order findings i n the present of f a c t " nor d i d i t a r e a s o n e d a n a l y s i s as t o how t h e d e t e r m i n a t e calculated to benefit rehabilitation." 989 So. the appellant 2d a t 1183. period or to further h i s The juvenile court also f a i l e d to " p l a i n l y evidence i t s i n t e n t to incorporate i t s order i n t o DYS's court made commitment included with service plan." some findings hearing of (SR. 4 - 5 ) , i n the order. instructions Id. fact 5 on none of those Accordingly, that the Although the j u v e n i l e the record at the findings were we must remand t h i s case juvenile court set aside i t s commitment o r d e r a n d r e s e n t e n c e T.L.S. i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e Due r e t u r n Court w i t h i n the s h a l l be made t o t h i s date of t h i s R.E.C., supra. 28 d a y s a f t e r opinion. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Windom, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , K e l l u m , a n d J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 5 "SR" denotes the supplemental r e c o r d 23 on a p p e a l .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.