Ronald Joseph Galloway v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2014-KA-00328-COA
RONALD JOSEPH GALLOWAY A/K/A APPELLANT
RONALD J. GALLOWAY A/K/A RONALD
GALLOWAY
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2013
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAWRENCE PAUL BOURGEOIS JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HANCOCK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: BENJAMIN A. SUBER
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LAURA H. TEDDER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOEL SMITH
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH
INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE WITHIN 1,500
FEET OF A PUBLIC PARK AND
SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER
TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS WITHOUT HOPE OF
PAROLE OR PROBATION
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/01/2015
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., ISHEE, CARLTON AND WILSON, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In 2013, Ronald Joseph Galloway was convicted by a jury in the Hancock County
Circuit Court of possessing less than thirty grams of marijuana, with the intent to distribute
within 1,500 feet of a public park. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty years
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) without the possibility
of parole or probation. Aggrieved, he appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to
support the verdict and that the circuit court erred by admitting his confession into evidence.
Finding no error, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2. On August 26, 2011, Detectives James Burch and Robert O’Neal, narcotics specialists
with the Bay Saint Louis Police Department in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, were working
with a confidential informant who was performing “buy-walk operations.” In the buy-walk
operations, the informant was sent undercover to buy narcotics at random locations in areas
known for high instances of narcotics sales. The informant was equipped with two recording
devices – one allowed Detectives Burch and O’Neal to hear everything as it was taking place,
while the other served as a standard audio and video recording device that could be accessed
at a later time.
¶3. While the informant was biking through Martin Luther King Jr. public park – a park
well known for narcotic-related activity – he was flagged down by a man. A conversation
ensued between the two men regarding what type of drugs the informant was seeking. The
informant told the man that he was looking for crack cocaine. At that point, the man
retrieved a brown paper bag from a nearby trash can and told the informant that he did not
have crack cocaine but that he could sell him marijuana. The informant told the man that he
did not have money to purchase the marijuana at that time, but that he would try to come
2
back later.
¶4. As the informant began biking away, he gave the detectives listening to the recording
device a description of the man who had attempted to sell him marijuana. The informant
stated that the man was a black male between five feet eight inches tall and five feet eleven
inches tall. He was wearing a stocking skull cap, a black t-shirt with a blue logo on it, black
jeans, and dress shoes.
¶5. Detectives Burch and O’Neal gave nearby Bay Saint Louis Police Department patrol
officers the description the informant had given them. Officers Randall Darty and Don Gray
immediately responded and observed a man sitting on a bench in the park wearing the exact
clothing described by the informant. Office Darty approached the man and asked for the
man’s identification. Officer Darty testified that the man refused to cooperate and soon
became belligerent and loud. As Officer Darty walked closer to the man, he observed a
bulge in the man’s right pocket. Officer Darty then asked the man to place his hands on the
handrail of the bench so that he could identify the bulge in the man’s pocket. Instead of
complying, the man fled from Officer Darty. As he was running away, Officer Darty noticed
a light blue and white design on the back of the man’s jeans and also noticed him drop a
brown paper bag from his right hand. Officer Gray continued the pursuit while Officer Darty
stayed behind to retrieve the bag the man had dropped and to radio to other nearby units to
pursue the man. Officer Darty testified that the bag contained multiple small bags of
marijuana.
¶6. Approximately thirty minutes later, while searching for the suspect, Detectives O’Neal
3
and Burch encountered Galloway. The detectives noted that he matched the descriptions that
the informant and Officer Darty had provided. However, Galloway was wearing a different
shirt and shoes, and he was not wearing a stocking skull cap. Nonetheless, he was wearing
black jeans with a blue and white design on the back, seemingly identical to what Officer
Darty had described. The detectives observed that Galloway was breathing heavily and
sweating. They immediately called Officer Darty. Officer Darty arrived on the scene and
positively identified Galloway as the man he had encountered in the park.
¶7. Galloway was taken into custody and transported to the Bay Saint Louis Police
Station. As he was being handcuffed, Galloway was read his Miranda1 rights. When he
arrived at the police station, he was interviewed by Detectives Burch and O’Neal. He agreed
to waive his rights and give the detectives a statement. Galloway informed the detectives that
he had a fifth-grade education and could not read or write. As such, Detective O’Neal read
to Galloway a form advising him of his rights and a form allowing Galloway to waive his
rights. Galloway signed the waiver-of-rights form. He was then videotaped and audiotaped
while he admitted to possessing the marijuana in question with an intent to sell it.
¶8. Galloway was indicted by a grand jury in November 2012 for one count of possession
of a controlled substance with intent to distribute it within 1,500 feet of a public park. He
pleaded not guilty. A trial ensued in 2013. Prior to the trial, Galloway’s counsel filed a
motion to suppress Galloway’s confession. The circuit judge denied the motion, and the
confession was admitted into evidence during the trial. Also admitted into evidence was the
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
4
Mississippi State Crime Lab’s analysis of the substance found in the brown paper bag. The
analysis showed that the substance was less than thirty grams of marijuana. The jury
ultimately found Galloway to be guilty. Galloway moved for a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict (JNOV), which was denied. The circuit judge then sentenced Galloway as a
habitual offender to twenty years in the custody of the MDOC without the possibility of
parole or probation.
¶9. On appeal, Galloway asserts that the circuit judge erred by denying his motion for a
JNOV because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the circuit
judge erred by allowing the confession to be admitted into evidence.
DISCUSSION
¶10. A motion for a directed verdict and a motion for a JNOV both challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence. Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005). The
Mississippi Supreme Court has noted that in considering the denial of motions for a directed
verdict and a JNOV, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 315 (1979)).
¶11. Hence, the underlying question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that Galloway knew that the brown paper bag contained
marijuana, possessed dominion and control over the bag, and had intended to sell the
marijuana while in the park. See Jackson v. State, 689 So. 2d 760, 767 (Miss. 1997); Berry
5
v. State, 652 So. 2d 745, 748 (Miss. 1995); Campbell v. State, 566 So. 2d 475, 477 (Miss.
1990). The evidence presented at trial showed that both the informant and Officer Darty
witnessed Galloway with the brown paper bag in his hand. The informant observed
Galloway retrieve the brown paper bag from a nearby garbage can in the park as Galloway
was offering to sell the informant marijuana. Later, Officer Darty witnessed Galloway drop
the bag in the park while evading the authorities. The eyewitness testimony alone is enough
to support a juror’s finding that Galloway possessed the marijuana and intended to sell it in
the public park. Furthermore, Galloway admitted to having possessed the marijuana in
question and also admitted that his intent was to sell the marijuana in the park.
¶12. Nonetheless, Galloway challenges the circuit judge’s denial of his request to suppress
the admission of his confession into evidence. He claims that his confession was not
knowingly and intelligently made. A motion to suppress a confession will be reversed only
“if the incorrect legal principle was applied; if there was no substantial evidence to support
a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights; and if the denial was a result
of manifest error.” Scott v. State, 8 So. 3d 855, 861 (¶22) (Miss. 2008). The burden of
proving that a confession was validly made is met through “testimony of an officer, or other
person having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without any
threats, coercion, or offer of reward.” Id. at (¶24).
¶13. Here, while Galloway was only equipped with a fifth-grade education, his rights were
explained to him on numerous occasions. His Miranda rights were read to him as he was
being handcuffed in the park. Detective O’Neal also advised Galloway of his Miranda rights
6
prior to the interview at the police station. Immediately thereafter, Detective O’Neal read
aloud to O’Neal the form explaining his rights. Galloway stated that he understood his rights
and the consequences of waiving his rights but still wanted to waive them. Nonetheless,
Galloway asserts that his minimal education and illiteracy negates his indication to the
detectives that he understood his rights and the waiver of those rights.
¶14. In Morgan v. State, 681 So. 2d 82, 84-85 (Miss. 1996), Daryl Leonard Morgan was
convicted of murder and armed robbery after he gave a videotaped confession to authorities,
which was later admitted into evidence at trial. On appeal, Morgan asserted that because he
was illiterate, his confession was not properly made. Id. at 85-86. The supreme court
reviewed the videotaped confession along with the testimony rendered by the officers
involved and determined that Morgan’s illiteracy alone did not negate the voluntariness of
the confession and that the evidence supported the circuit judge’s decision to allow the
confession into evidence. Id. at 88.
¶15. Such is the case here. Galloway’s inability to read and write did not prohibit him per
se from understanding his rights. He was read his Miranda rights on at least two separate
occasions and was also read the form outlining both his rights and the consequences of
waiving those rights should he confess. The facts that Galloway was unable to actually read
the form himself and only possessed minimal formal education do not automatically bar
Galloway from comprehending his rights and the ramifications of waiving them.
¶16. Additionally, the circuit judge was in the best position to make the fact-finding
decision of whether or not Galloway voluntarily waived his rights by making a confession.
7
The circuit judge saw the videotaped confession and heard the testimony of Detective
O’Neal, who had personally explained to Galloway his rights. As stated by the supreme
court, “we will not overturn a finding of fact made by a trial judge unless it [is] clearly
erroneous.” Id. at 87. Given the evidence outlined above, we cannot deem clearly erroneous
the circuit judge’s decision to suppress the confession when it is supported by the record.
These issues are meritless.
¶17. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HANCOCK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO
DISTRIBUTE WITHIN 1,500 FEET OF A PUBLIC PARK AND SENTENCE AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT THE HOPE OF
PAROLE OR PROBATION IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO HANCOCK COUNTY.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, MAXWELL,
FAIR, JAMES AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.
8