Burke v. State

A jury found Geronimo Burke guilty of three counts of armed robbery in connection with a series of convenience store robberies. Burke appeals from the convictions, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a gun and clothing recovered during a warrantless search of his home. Burke urges that his objection to the search, like that of the defendant in Georgia v. Randolph ,1 overrode the consent given by his wife. Based on the facts presented in this case, we find no error and affirm the ruling of the trial court. In considering an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, this Court construes the evidence in favor of the trial court’s ruling, and we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts.2 Additionally, we must defer to the trial court’s determination on the credibility of witnesses, and the trial court’s ruling on disputed facts must be accepted unless it is clearly erroneous.3

So viewed, the evidence shows that law enforcement officers received information that a car registered to Maurice Darien was involved in the armed robberies, and that it was occupied by three or four men. A corporal with the Metter Police Department knew that Darien had been staying in a certain neighborhood, so he drove to that area. The corporal saw the car parked behind Burke’s mobile home, and called for assistance.