State v. Sayles

310 A.3d 929

348 Conn. 669

STATE of Connecticut

v.Dwayne SAYLES

(SC 20575)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 11, 2022

Officially Released March 26, 2024

Dina S. Fisher, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state’s attorney, with whom were Lisa. M. D’Angelo, executive assistant state’s attorney, and, on the brief, John P. Doyle, Jr., state’s attorney, Patrick J. Griffin, former state’s attorney, Seth R. Garbarsky, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, and Rocco A. Chiarenza, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins and Ecker, Js.

ROBINSON, C. J.

₆₇₃A jury found the defendant, Dwayne Sayles, guilty of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, among other offenses, in connection with his role in the robbery of a New Haven convenience store that resulted in the fatal shooting of the store clerk. The defendant now appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,¹ from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction. State v. Sayles, 202 Conn. App. 736, 769, 246 A.3d 1010 (2021). On appeal, the defendant raises numerous constitutional challenges to the decision of the Appellate Court upholding the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence of his cell phone and its stored data. We, however, need not address the merits of the defendant’s various constitutional claims because we conclude that any error in the admission of the contents of the defendant’s cell phone was harmless beyond a ₆₇₄reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history, much of which is aptly set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. "On April 6, 2015, Leighton Vanderberg drove around in his wife’s Ford Focus with the defendant and Jamal Sumler. The three men proceeded to the Fair Haven section of New Haven and then toward Forbes Avenue. Sumler requested that they stop at a store. Vanderberg complied, drove to [the Pay Rite Food Store (Pay Rite)] convenience store and parked on the street. Vanderberg asked Sumler to purchase a couple of cigars and provided him with cash to complete the transaction. The defendant and Sumler went into the convenience store while Vanderberg remained in the vehicle.

"Sumler, wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt, entered the convenience store first. As he approached the counter, he pointed a pistol at the victim, Sanjay Patel, an employee at the convenience store. As Sumler moved behind a counter, the defendant entered the convenience store. The defendant pulled out a pistol from his pocket and, after a few moments, shot the victim. The defendant was handed a box of cigars and some cash. He then moved toward the entrance of the convenience store. As Sumler and the victim, who brandished a stool, engaged in a physical altercation, the defendant fled. After the defendant departed, Sumler shot the victim." (Footnote omitted.) State v. Sayles, supra, 202 Conn. App. at 739–40, 246 A.3d 1010. The victim later died from his injuries, namely, gunshot wounds to the torso and extremities. Id., at 740 and n.4, 246 A.3d 1010.

The three men fled in the Ford Focus to the Church Street South housing complex, where the defendant lived in an apartment. Id., at 740, 246 A.3d 1010. The defendant threw an entire box of cigars and the sweatshirt he was wearing ₆₇₅into a nearby dumpster. Id. "After receiving approximately $20 for gas from the defendant arid thirty to forty cigars from Sumler, Vanderberg left the apartment." Id., at 741, 246 A.3d 1010.

"The next night, Vanderberg learned from a friend that the victim had been shot and killed at the [Pay Rite]. Thereafter, he informed his probation officer about what had transpired …. Following his arrest, Vanderberg met with police detectives on April 14, 2015, and identified the defendant and Sumler in photographs that were taken from surveillance video at the [Pay Rite]." Id., at 741, 246 A.3d 1010. On April 15, 2015, the police executed a search warrant for the defendant’s residence. Id., at 744, 246 A.3d 1010. During their search, the police discovered a black ski mask and a dark colored pair of gloves. Id., at 744 and n.10, 246 A.3d 1010.

The defendant was not present at the time of the search, but, when he learned about the search later that day, he contacted the police and agreed to meet for an interview with Detectives Chistopher Perrone and David Zaweski at a New Haven police station. Id., at 744, 246 A.3d 1010. At the start of the video-recorded interview, Perrone read the defendant his Miranda² rights. Id., at 744-45 and n.11, 246 A.3d 1010: Perrone subsequently took the defendant’s cell phone from the defendant’s mother, who was holding it for him during the interview.³ Id., at 742, 744–45, 246 A.3d 1010. The ₆₇₆defendant and his mother then left the police station. The next day, the court granted Perrone’s application for a search and seizure warrant to obtain data contained in the defendant’s cell phone. Id., at 742, 246 A.3d 1010.

Ultimately, the police retrieved from the defendant’s cell phone (1) an incoming text message telling the defendant not to come home at approximately the same time that the police were searching his residence, (2) a news report about the Pay Rite robbery, which had been downloaded after the search of the defendant’s home, (3) communications between the defendant, Sumler, and Vanderberg on the night of the Pay Rite robbery, and (4) a draft, unsent text message, stating, "[i]f I get locked up tell sheema put them shits in the river some where worda loc."⁴

"After further investigation, the police arrested the defendant. In May, 2015, while in pretrial custody, he admitted to a fellow inmate [Derrick Hoover] that he and Sumler had shot the victim during the robbery of the [Pay. Rite]." State v. Sayles, supra, 202 Conn. App. at 741, 246 A.3d 1010.

The state charged the defendant with felony murder in violation of § 53a-54c, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134 (a) (2), criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c, and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of his cell phone and its stored data. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to suppress, ₆₇₇first orally and later in a supplemental memorandum of decision. The case was then tried before a jury, which found the defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict and imposed a total effective sentence of eighty years of incarceration.

[1] The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, claiming that "(1) [the] police detectives [had] violated his Miranda rights and his rights pursuant to article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution when they continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel, (2) the police detectives [had] seized his cell phone in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, and (3) the affidavit that the police [had] submitted in support of their application for a warrant to search the contents of his cell phone contained materially false information." (Footnote omitted.) State v. Sayles, supra, 202 Conn. App. at 738–39, 246 A.3d 1010. The Appellate Court rejected these claims, following this court’s decision in State v. Mangual, 311 Conn. 182, 85 A.3d 627 (2014), and concluded that, under federal case law following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 124 S. Ct. 2620, 159 L. Ed. 2d 667 (2004), a violation of Miranda constitutes a violation of only a prophylactic rule, and, thus, the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine⁵ did not require suppression of the contents of the defendant’s cell phone. See State v. Sayles, supra, at 739, 751–52, 246 A.3d 1010; see also id., at 748–50, 246 A.3d 1010. As to the defendant’s state constitutional claim seeking the adoption of a new prophylactic rule "to protect against ₆₇₈police tactics aimed at undermining the constitutional rights of a suspect," the court held that the defendant had abandoned the claim because his appellate brief contained only a single sentence of analysis. Id., at 753, 246 A.3d 1010; see id., at 753–55, 246 A.3d 1010. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s fourth amendment claim, reasoning that the seizure of the cell phone was supported by probable cause and was justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine. See id., at 761–65, 246 A.3d 1010. Finally, the Appellate Court concluded that the record and the defendant’s brief were inadequate for review of the defendant’s claim under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978), that the affidavit that the police submitted in support of their application for a warrant to search the contents of his cell phone contained materially false information by omitting the fact that he had requested an attorney. See State v. Sayles, supra, at 767–79, 246 A.3d 1010. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., at 769, 246 A.3d 1010. This certified appeal followed. See footnote 1 of this opinion.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence of his cell phone and the data stored therein for several reasons. Principally, however, the defendant provides a comprehensive analysis under State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684–86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), and claims that article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution mandates protection of a suspect’s Miranda rights via the adoption...