Perkins v. State

360 Ga.App. 782

861 S.E.2d 621

PERKINS

v.The STATE.

A21A0994

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 21, 2021

Lindsay & Rawls, Christopher B. Rawls, for Appellant.

Christopher Allen Arnt, District Attorney, Deanna B. Reisman, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.

McFadden, Presiding Judge.

After a jury trial, Jonathan Lamar Perkins was convicted of trafficking methamphetamine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, but we hold that he has not shown error. He also argues that trial counsel was ineffective, but he has not shown both deficient performance and prejudice. So we affirm.

1. Motion to suppress.

Perkins argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the state did not demonstrate that the detectives who stopped him had a reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in criminal activity. We hold that the state met its burden. OCGA § 17-5-30 (b) ("the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the state").

Because the trial court denied the motion to suppress in a summary order without explicit findings, "we presume that the trial court implicitly made all the findings in support of its ruling that the record would allow." State v. Walden , 311 Ga. 389, 389, 858 S.E.2d 42 (2021). Additionally, we "construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the trial court's judgment." State v. Brogan , 340 Ga. App. 232, 234, 797 S.E.2d 149 (2017).

So viewed, the evidence shows that two detectives were driving in separate cars to Rossville to interview Perkins's nephew, who was suspected of having stolen a car. A woman had reported that she lent her car to the nephew and he had failed to return it. Although the detective who was investigating the stolen-car case did not remember the woman's name when he testified at the motion to suppress hearing, he had the name in a summary of the case that he had left at his office.

As they approached the residence where they believed the nephew lived, the detectives saw a man leaving the residence on a motorcycle. He was white, like the nephew, and he had the same build as the nephew.

One of the detectives stopped his car in front of the motorcycle to verify the identity of the motorcycle driver, believing the driver could be the nephew. The motorcycle stopped, and the driver stepped off the motorcycle and began reaching for his pocket. Multiple times, the detective ordered the driver to remove his hand from his pocket, afraid that he had a weapon, but the motorcycle driver ignored the command and turned as if he intended to get back on the motorcycle. The detective grabbed the driver's hand to remove it from his pocket, and the driver announced that he had a pistol in his pocket. The detective handcuffed the driver and retrieved the pistol from his pocket.

The detective removed the driver's helmet and realized that he had stopped Perkins, not the nephew. The detective believed that Perkins was a convicted felon, and Perkins immediately admitted that he was. Perkins also said that he had two more handguns in his backpack. The detectives searched the backpack to recover the handguns. In addition to the guns, they found methamphetamine, marijuana, and a large amount of cash in the backpack.

Perkins argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the detectives should not have stopped him. He argues that they lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the nephew in the first place, given that they only knew that an unnamed owner of a vehicle had lent it to the nephew and that the nephew had not returned it, and because the alleged vehicle theft had occurred in the past and was not currently in progress. Perkins also argues that it was not objectively reasonable for the detectives to have mistaken him for his nephew, given that the detectives could not testify about the nephew's height or weight and given Perkins's mother's testimony that the two men had different builds. We disagree with Perkins's arguments.

(a) Reasonable suspicion of a completed felony.

Contrary to Perkins's argument, the detectives could stop the nephew for an alleged completed crime, as long as they had reasonable suspicion. "[I]f police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry [v. Ohio , 392 U. S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)] stop may be made to investigate that suspicion." United States v. Hensley , 469 U. S. 221, 229 (II) (A), 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) ; accord Kettman v. State , 257 Ga. 603, 607 (9), 362 S.E.2d 342 (1987).

The detectives had a reasonable suspicion, grounded in articulable facts, that the nephew had been involved in a completed felony. They had received a report from a possible victim, who identified herself to them, that she had lent her car to the nephew and that he had failed to return it. This gave the detectives "a founded suspicion ... from which the court [could] determine that the [stop] was not arbitrary or harassing." Duke v. State , 257 Ga. App. 609, 610, 571 S.E.2d 414 (2002).

(b) Mistaken identity.

Perkins argues that the stop was illegal because the detectives’ mistaking him for his nephew was not objectively reasonable. Again, we disagree.

The fact that the detectives were mistaken about the identity of the motorcycle driver does not invalidate the stop. "[S]earches and seizures based on mistakes of fact[, including mistaking another individual for a suspect,] can be reasonable." Heien v. North Carolina , 574 U. S. 54, 61 (II), 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014). See also Hill v. California , 401 U. S. 797, 802 (II), 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971) ("[W]hen the police have probable cause to arrest one party, and when they reasonably mistake a second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is a valid arrest.") (citation and punctuation omitted); Cunningham v. State , 231 Ga. App. 420, 422 (1), 498 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (applying Hill to traffic stop). "The limit is that the mistakes must be those of reasonable men." Heien , 574 U. S. at 61 (II), 135 S.Ct. 530 (citation and punctuation omitted).

In this case, the state presented evidence that the detectives believed they were stopping the nephew instead of Perkins because both the nephew and Perkins are white, their builds are similar, and the motorcycle was leaving what they believed to be the nephew's residence. As for Perkins's mother's testimony that the men have different builds, of course the "[c]redibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is a decision-making power that lies solely with the trier of fact." Tate v. State , 264 Ga. 53, 56 (3), 440 S.E.2d 646 (1994) ; accord Hughes v. State , 296 Ga. 744, 747 (1), 770 S.E.2d 636 (2015).

We cannot say that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.

2. Ineffective assistance of counsel.

Perkins argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in making his opening statement and in failing to move for a mistrial. To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Perkins must "prove both that his counsel's performance was professionally deficient and that, but for the unprofessional performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. We need not review both elements of this test if [Perkins] fails to prove one of them." Stripling v. State , 304 Ga. 131, 138 (3) (b), 816 S.E.2d 663 (2018) (citation omitted). See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 687 (III), 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Perkins has failed to prove both elements for his claims.

(a) Opening statement.

Before trial, the court conducted a Jackson-Denno hearing regarding the admissibility of three statements Perkins made to the detectives: that he had a gun in his pocket; that he was a convicted felon; and that he had two guns in his backpack. The parties agreed to bifurcate Perkins's trial so that the possession-by-a-convicted-felon charges would be tried separately from the drug charges, and they stipulated that Perkins's statement that he was a convicted felon would not be admitted in the trial of the drug charges. The assistant district attorney agreed to instruct the state's witnesses not to mention that statement "unless [defense counsel] open[ed] the door to which they [could] respond as they need[ed]."

The trial began, and in his opening statement, defense counsel stated that the detectives "arrested [Perkins] for the gun in his pocket. No crime was committed." After defense counsel completed his opening statement, the assistant district attorney requested a bench conference, where she argued that defense counsel's opening statement opened the door to the presentation of evidence that Perkins was a convicted felon in order to demonstrate that, contrary to defense counsel's opening statement, Perkins was arrested for a crime, the crime of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.

In response, defense counsel argued that his opening statement was accurate because Perkins had not committed a crime when the detectives arrested him—by handcuffing him—which they did before Perkins had admitted that he was a convicted felon. The state countered that Perkins was handcuffed because he stated that he had a gun in his pocket and that he was not arrested until after he had admitted that he was a convicted felon.

The court agreed with the state that defense counsel had opened the door to the admission of evidence that Perkins was a convicted felon. So one of the detectives testified at trial that once the motorcyclist's helmet came off, he recognized him as Perkins, whom he knew to be a convicted felon.

At the motion...