Summary 2009 WY 125

Summary of Decision issued October 13, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Miller v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 125

Docket Number: S-08-0190; S-08-0191

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge.

Representing Appellant Miller: Michael H. Reese, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric Alan Johnson, Director Prosecution Assistance Program; Eric K. Thompson, Student Director; Cortney Kitchen, Student Intern.

Facts/Discussion: Miller challenged his conviction for several counts of illegal possession of controlled substances. He contended the district court erred in its denial of his motion to suppress evidence in each case. He also claimed a violation of his right to speedy trial in both cases.

Motions to Suppress: Miller contended the sweep of his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights because officers entered his home without a warrant. The district court determined the information received from the informant was sufficient to establish probable cause. Information received from an informant must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. The witness’s statements were based upon firsthand knowledge, were against his penal interests, and were close in time to the events he described. The district court recognized that the presence of evidence that is easily destroyed (methamphetamine and marijuana) combined with phone calls from Miller to the informant and the close proximity of Miller’s and the informant’s homes created exigent circumstances justifying the sweep of the residence prior to receiving the warrant. It was undisputed the challenged evidence was obtained during execution of the search warrant. On appeal, Miller did not identify any evidence or information that was found during the sweep or his detention that was used to obtain the warrant.
Miller sought to suppress evidence found as a result of the search of his fiancée’s vehicle. The district court denied the motion on the basis that he lacked standing to challenge the search. It was undisputed Miller did not own the vehicle and was not present at any time during the search. The Court distinguished both United States v. Soto and United States v. Rubio-Rivera from the instant case. Neither defendant owned the cars in those cases but both had standing because each was in possession of the vehicle at the time of the search.
Speedy Trial: Miller did not assert a speedy trial defense in the district court and did not reserve his right to assert the issue on appeal in docket no. 6192. In docket no. 6171, Miller signed two waivers of speedy trial. In his appeal, Miller did not contend that his trial was delayed more than 180 days after each waiver or that the delay violated W.R.Cr.P. 48(b). The Court then considered the four-factor test set out in Barker v. Wingo that requires the Court to evaluate the length of delay, the reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of the right and prejudice to the defendant. Miller was arrested in 2006 and not brought to trial until 2008, a delay of 504 days. The Court stated it previously found that such a delay was presumptively prejudicial. A review of the record revealed that most of the delay was attributable to Miller’s six changes in defense counsel and the requests by defense to allow adequate time for new counsel to prepare for trial. Miller signed two waivers but did not otherwise bring any speedy trial claims to the attention of the district court. Miller made no argument that his pretrial incarceration was oppressive. A bare assertion will not suffice. The possibility that the defense was impaired by the delay is the most serious factor in determining prejudice. Miller failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the delay.

Conclusion: Miller failed to establish the required nexus between the alleged misconduct and the evidence that he sought to suppress. Miller did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search. Miller was not denied his statutory or constitutional right to a speedy trial in either case.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yl4k6so .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]