State of Louisiana v. Julia Genelle Easily

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-687

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JULIA GENELLE EASILY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 68823
HONORABLE STEPHEN BRUCE BEASLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

AFFIRMED

Hon. Don M. Burkett
District Attorney, Eleventh Judicial District
P. O. Box 1557
Many, LA 71449
(318) 256-6246
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Paula Corley Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 80006
Lafayette, LA 70598-0006
(337) 991-9757
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Julia Genelle Easily

Anna Louise Garcie
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 1557
Many, LA 71449
(318) 256-6246
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

SAUNDERS, Judge.

Defendant, Julia Genell Easily, was charged with one count of possessing a

CDS II (cocaine) with the intent to distribute, in violation of La.R.S. 40:967.

Thereafter, Defendant appeared for a preliminary examination hearing on April 18,

2011. At the hearing, Defendant made an oral motion to suppress the evidence in

her case. Following presentation of the evidence, the trial court denied

Defendant’s motion to suppress.

On May 3, 2011, Defendant appeared for a guilty plea and sentencing

hearing. The State put forth on the record that Defendant was going to plead guilty

to simple possession of a CDS II. The defense added that, as part of the plea

bargain, the prosecution had agreed to drop other charges against Defendant. The

defense further stated that Defendant would plead guilty pursuant to State v.

Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), thereby preserving the right to appellate review

of the trial court’s decision denying the motion to suppress. Moreover, the defense

requested an appeal bond be set in the instant case.

After the district court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea, it sentenced her to

serve one year at hard labor and set a $500 appeal bond. On May 13, 2011, the

sentencing court amended Defendant’s sentence to include credit for time served

and to notify Defendant of the delays for seeking post-conviction relief.

Defendant now appeals. We affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Defendant was arrested at the Family Dollar store in Many, Louisiana for

entering after being forbidden. At the time of her arrest, Defendant had seven

rocks of crack cocaine, a razor blade, and $683 in her possession.

ERRORS PATENT:

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed by

this court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,

we find that there no errors patent.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress

evidence:

The search of the truck some distance from where Julia Easily
was arrested went beyond the lawful scope of a search incident to an
arrest. The subsequent search and seizure of Julia Easily’s purse and
a closed pill bottle found inside were unreasonable, and the trial judge
erred in denying the motion to suppress on that basis.

Defendant urges that the evidence in her case should have been suppressed because

the seizure of the evidence did not fall within either the officer safety exception or

the search incident to an arrest exception to the warrant requirement.

The State responds that the evidence was admissible because it was

discovered in plain view. Moreover, once Defendant had the purse, the officer had

the right to go through the purse for his safety and to safeguard the contents for

Defendant.

This court has determined that the proper standard of review for examining

rulings on motions to suppress is abuse of discretion:

When a trial court rules on a defendant’s motion to suppress,
the appellate court must look at the totality of the evidence presented
at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The appellate court should
not overturn a trial court’s ruling, unless the trial court’s conclusions
are not supported by the evidence, or there exists an internal
inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses, or there was a
palpable or obvious abuse of discretion.

State v. Bargeman, 98-617, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98), 721 So.2d 964, 967,

writ denied, 99-33 (La. 5/28/99), 743 So.2d 658.

2

A defendant may move to suppress evidence from use at trial ―on the ground

that it was unconstitutionally obtained.‖ La.Code Crim.P. art. 703(A). Moreover,

a defendant may seek to suppress confessions and statements on constitutional

grounds. La.Code Crim.P. art. 703(B). The State has the burden of proving that

evidence seized without a warrant and confessions is admissible. La.Code Crim.P.

art. 703(D). ―An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress shall be held only

when the defendant alleges facts that would require the granting of relief.‖

La.Code Crim.P. art. 703(E)(1).

The record shows that there was a variety of incriminating evidence against

Defendant: (1) the testimony of the officer who discovered the crack cocaine and

the razor blade; (2) the actual crack cocaine and razor blade; (3) the lab analysis of

the crack cocaine; (4) an evidence receipt signed by Defendant showing that she

acknowledged having seven rocks of crack cocaine and a razor blade in her purse;

and, (5) the testimony of the officer who obtained the signature on the evidence

receipt that Defendant not only signed the receipt but also informed him that there

had been seven, not ten, rocks of crack cocaine in her purse.

Defendant did not file a written motion to suppress with the trial court, and

the transcript of the suppression hearing contains only a bare argument that the

evidence should be suppressed in the instant case:

THE COURT: What’s our next case?

MS. GARCIE: Julia Easily.

THE COURT: This is a preliminary examination?

MS. GARCIE: Actually Mr. Kendrick and I think he had
meant to file a motion to suppress but it would essentially be the same
testimony[,] so it’s actually going to be a motion to suppress. Is that
correct, Mr. Kendrick?

3

MR. KENDRICK: Yes. I would just ask if the Court would
indulge. I did not file a motion to suppress[,] but I think the issues are
pretty similar[,] so in the interest of judicial economy—

THE COURT: The State has no objection?

MS. GARCIE: No, Your Honor, we do not.

Thereafter, the prosecution called its first witness.

Immediately after the State concluded its presentation of the evidence, the

trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, so there was also no

post-evidence argument setting forth the basis of Defendant’s motion to suppress

evidence. Further, a reading of the motion for preliminary examination reveals no

claims that evidence should be suppressed.

Thus, the defense never alleged a basis for the motion to suppress, alleged

facts that would entitle her to a hearing on the issue, or even asserted that the

evidence was seized without a warrant or was unconstitutionally obtained. Further,

the defense failed to both designate what evidence she was moving to suppress and

set forth grounds for the suppression thereof.

On appeal, review of a defendant’s arguments concerning whether evidence

should have been suppressed is limited to what was presented in the written motion

and at the suppression hearing:

The defense has the burden of asserting the basis for its motion
to suppress in order to provide the State with adequate notice so that it
may prepare evidence addressing the defendant's claims. LSA-
C.Cr.P. art. 703 E. Therefore, the defendant is limited on appeal to
the grounds articulated in his motion to suppress or at the hearing on
that motion. A new basis, even a meritorious one, cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.

State v. Veals, 07-605, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/22/08), 977 So.2d 1030, 1038, writ

denied, 08-571 (La. 11/26/08), 997 So.2d 543 (citations omitted); see also La.Code

Crim.P. art. 841 (―[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless

4

it was objected to at the time of occurrence[.]‖); and see State v. Holmes, 06-2988,

p. 69 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 42, 88, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 70 (2009)

(―[A] new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal[.]‖).

Thus, as there was no basis alleged to support suppression of the evidence in

the instant case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s

motion to suppress.

Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

DECREE:

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules
–Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

5