Richardson v. State

The arresting officer was entitled to pat-down the defendant for his own safety after a drug dog alerted to the presence of contraband on the driver's side of the defendant's vehicle and the officer learned that the defendant had been convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a jury trial, Leronza Lamar Richardson was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and misdemeanor obstruction of an officer. He appeals, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress and the denial of his Batson motion. He also argues that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We find that the arresting officer’s decision to detain Richardson was founded on a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct and that the officer legally could frisk Richardson. We find that the state articulated race-neutral reasons for exercising its jury strikes. Finally, we find that trial counsel was not ineffective. We therefore affirm Richardson’s convictions.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Morris v. State, 322 Ga. App. 682, 683 1 746 SE2d 162 2013, the evidence shows that the arresting officer, a deputy sheriff with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, was monitoring traffic on Interstate 75 when he saw Richardson’s minivan fail to maintain its lane. The deputy signaled for Richardson to pull over. Richardson exited the highway, turned left onto the roadway, turned right onto another street, and then stopped at a gas station, about a mile from where the deputy had activated his lights. Richardson, the only person in the minivan, was extremely nervous. Richardson exited his minivan and told the deputy that he had panicked when he saw the deputy because he was driving on some type of limited permit. He said that he was returning to Moultrie from his job at Wendy’s in Atlanta, three hours away, which did not make sense to the deputy. That, combined with Richardson’s nervousness made the deputy suspicious that “some type of criminal activity was going on.” Almost immediately, a backup officer with a drug detection dog arrived at the scene.

Richardson v. State

The arresting officer was entitled to pat-down the defendant for his own safety after a drug dog alerted to the presence of contraband on the driver's side of the defendant's vehicle and the officer learned that the defendant had been convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report