Traci Lynn Gunnell v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Huff
UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Salem, Virginia
TRACI LYNN GUNNELL
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0475-13-3 JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES
MARCH 18, 2014
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE
Joseph W. Milam, Jr., Judge
Heath L. Sabin, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public
Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Victoria Johnson, Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
After the trial court denied Traci Lynn Gunnell’s (appellant) motion to suppress evidence
found during a search incident to arrest, appellant’s trial counsel informed the trial court that
appellant wished to enter a conditional guilty plea. This conditional guilty plea encompassed two
felony charges (for possession of cocaine and possession of methadone) and two misdemeanor
charges (for possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance and driving under the influence, first
offense). On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the
evidence on the ground that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest her for driving under
the influence. Appellant also contends for the first time on appeal that the trial court erred when it
accepted her conditional guilty pleas to the two misdemeanor charges. Appellant contends that the
guilty pleas for the misdemeanor charges were not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently
since appellant “entered the conditional [pleas] expressly to preserve issues raised in the motion to
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
suppress.” For the following reasons, we affirm both of appellant’s felony convictions and dismiss
with prejudice appellant’s appeal of both of her misdemeanor convictions.
I. BACKGROUND
Applying the established standard of review on appeal, we consider the evidence at trial “‘in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must since it was the prevailing party’” in the
trial court. Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 391, 728 S.E.2d 499, 504 (2012) (quoting
Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 330, 601 S.E.2d 555, 574 (2004)). On August 24, 2012, just
before midnight, Officer Lancaster of the Danville Police Department, observed a vehicle with
non-illuminated taillights. After initiating and effecting a stop of the vehicle – which appellant was
driving – Officer Lancaster approached appellant and, after noticing that the headlights were also
not illuminated, told her that he had stopped her because her headlights were not illuminated. A
video that was admitted at the suppression hearing shows appellant attempting to make a phone call
on her cell phone as Officer Lancaster approached her vehicle and attempted to initiate a
conversation with her.
After detecting an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, Officer Lancaster asked
appellant if she had been drinking alcohol. Appellant admitted to drinking some alcohol –
specifically, a mixed drink with dinner around 7:30 or 8:30 p.m. – at which point Officer Lancaster
asked her to step out of the vehicle. Officer Lancaster testified that during the encounter, appellant
was “very talkative . . . also she had a strong odor of alcohol coming from her person as well as
watery and glassy eyes, she was very talkative, she was very upset . . . speech was slurred.”
Officer Lancaster proceeded to ask appellant to perform three field sobriety tests: (1) the
alphabet test (a recitation of the alphabet without singing it), (2) the index finger to nose test, and
(3) the nine-step heel-to-toe walk. Appellant performed the alphabet test correctly. Appellant failed
to perform the index finger to nose test correctly, however, as she used her middle finger instead of
-2-
her index finger and did not close her eyes as Officer Lancaster had instructed her to do. On the
nine-step heel-to-toe walk, appellant walked nine steps out, without stumbling, but did not walk
nine steps back as instructed. Appellant blew (or claimed to blow) three times into a device
designed to detect a person’s blood alcohol content, but the device was unable to register a reading
of any kind. After appellant’s repeated attempts to blow into the device, Officer Lancaster arrested
her.
During the search incident to arrest, Officer Lancaster found a pink straw in appellant’s
shorts pocket. It was later determined that the straw contained cocaine residue. In the same pocket,
Officer Lancaster found four yellow pills in a clear bag. It was later determined that those pills were
diazepam, which is a Schedule IV controlled substance. After conducting an inventory search of
appellant’s car, Officer Lancaster found a brown pocketbook on the right front floor of the car. At
the jail, appellant claimed the pocketbook as her own. The pocketbook contained a white pill that
turned out to be methadone, a Schedule II controlled substance. Finally, the breath analysis
performed at the police station revealed that appellant had a blood alcohol content of 0.15.
In denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence, the trial court noted that appellant’s
speech seemed slurred in the beginning of the encounter, that she failed to follow the officer’s
instructions on the finger-to-nose test and on the heel-to-toe test, that she fumbled with her phone,
and that Officer Lancaster discerned an odor of alcohol. After the trial court’s ruling on the motion
to suppress, appellant’s counsel informed the trial court that appellant wished to enter a conditional
guilty plea to the possession of cocaine charge, the possession of methadone charge, the possession
of a Schedule IV controlled substance charge, and the DWI (first offense) charge. Appellant
entered conditional guilty pleas to those charges, and the trial court accepted them as knowing and
voluntary.
-3-
II. ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Suppress the Evidence
Appellant’s first assignment of error challenges the trial court’s decision to deny her motion
to suppress the evidence recovered after her arrest. “When reviewing a denial of a motion to
suppress evidence, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth and will accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible from that evidence.” Branham v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 273, 279, 720 S.E.2d 74, 77
(2012) (citing Sidney v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 517, 520, 702 S.E.2d 124, 126 (2010)). In
addition, “The defendant has the burden of showing that even when the evidence is reviewed in that
light, denying the motion to suppress was reversible error.” Id. (citing Sidney, 280 Va. at 522, 702
S.E.2d at 127). “We review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to the particular facts of
the case.” Id. (citing Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123, 130, 654 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2008)).
The trial court’s findings of fact are not disturbed unless plainly wrong. See Code § 8.01-680.
Code § 18.2-266 provides, in relevant part, “It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or
operate any motor vehicle . . . while such person is under the influence of alcohol.” Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth (as we must since it was the prevailing
party at the suppression hearing), the evidence shows that the trial court did not err when it denied
appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that Officer Lancaster had probable cause
to arrest appellant for driving under the influence in violation of Code § 18.2-266. “‘[P]robable
cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has
reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to
believe that an offense has been or is being committed.’” McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620,
624, 701 S.E.2d 58, 60 (2010) (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52, 59, 688 S.E.2d 269,
273 (2010)). Here, the facts and circumstances in the record suggest that a finder of fact reasonably
-4-
could have found that Officer Lancaster had probable cause to arrest appellant for driving under the
influence.
First, appellant’s speech was slurred in the beginning of the encounter with Officer
Lancaster. In addition, appellant fumbled with her phone – and attempted to use her phone – as
Officer Lancaster was attempting to initiate a conversation with her. Third, appellant was unable to
successfully follow directions during two of the three field sobriety tests. Fourth, Officer Lancaster
testified that he discerned an odor of alcohol coming from appellant’s person. Fifth, appellant did
admit to Officer Lancaster that she had consumed some alcohol. Finally, as the trial court pointed
out, appellant was operating a vehicle at night with non-illuminated taillights and non-illuminated
headlights. Thus, all of these circumstances, taken together, were “‘sufficient to warrant a person of
reasonable caution to believe that an offense . . . [was] being committed.’” Id. As Officer Lancaster
had probable cause that appellant had been driving under the influence, he was justified in arresting
her for that offense. He was therefore justified in conducting a search incident to arrest, which
yielded, among other things, cocaine and methadone. For these reasons, we affirm appellant’s two
felony convictions for possession of cocaine and for possession of methadone – both in violation of
Code § 18.2-250.
B. Conditional Guilty Pleas
In her second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in permitting her
to enter conditional guilty pleas to her possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance charge and
to her driving under the influence (first offense) charge. Specifically, appellant contends that her
conditional guilty pleas to those two misdemeanor offenses were not entered knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily since Code § 19.2-254 does not permit a defendant to enter a conditional
guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge.
-5-
Article I, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution states, “in criminal cases, the accused may
plead guilty.” This Court has “interpreted this constitutional provision to mean that the
Commonwealth must accept any guilty plea tendered before a jury has rendered its verdict, so long
as the plea is entered ‘knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.’” Hill v. Commonwealth, 47
Va. App. 667, 671, 626 S.E.2d 459, 461 (2006) (citing Graham v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App.
133, 139, 397 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1990)). An accused does have the constitutional right to enter a
guilty plea, but “an accused does not have a constitutional right to enter a conditional guilty plea.
Rather, this right – established by Code § 19.2-254 – is a statutory one.” Id. Code § 19.2-254
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
With the approval of the court and the consent of the Commonwealth, a
defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty in a felony case, reserving
the right, on appeal from the judgment, to a review of the adverse
determination of any specified pretrial motions. If the defendant prevails
on appeal, he shall be allowed to withdraw his plea.
(Emphasis added).
Interpreting the plain language of Code § 19.2-254, this Court has held that it is error to
permit a defendant to enter a conditional guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge since no such right
exists by statute. Cross v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 484, 487, 642 S.E.2d 763, 766 (2007),
vacated on other grounds, 665 S.E.2d 861 (2008).1 However, this principle of law does not end our
analysis here.
1
This case is distinguishable from Cross. First, this Court’s opinion in Cross did not
address whether Cross invited the error. Here, however, appellant invited the error when
appellant’s counsel told the trial court, “[I]t will be a conditional guilty plea on the DUI and the
three drug possessions” charged against appellant. “‘A party may not approbate and reprobate
by taking successive positions in the course of litigation that are either inconsistent with each
other or mutually contradictory. Nor may a party invite error and then attempt to take advantage
of the situation created by his own wrong.’” Rowe v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 495, 502, 675
S.E.2d 161, 164 (2009) (quoting Cangiano v. LSH Bldg. Co., 271 Va. 171, 181, 623 S.E.2d 889,
895 (2006)). Second, this Court in Cross reversed the trial court’s denial of Cross’s motion to
suppress the evidence. Cross, 49 Va. App. at 487, 642 S.E.2d at 763. Thus, in Cross the
defendant’s conditional guilty plea was supported by facts that ought to have been suppressed
-6-
In this case, unlike in Cross, it is clear that appellant’s trial counsel invited the error by
expressly informing the trial court that appellant wished to enter a conditional guilty plea to the two
felony charges and two misdemeanor charges that were pending against appellant.2 Thus, appellant
through counsel asserted a right to enter a conditional guilty plea to misdemeanor charges – but
now, on appeal, seeks a reversal of the trial court’s judgment on the basis that such a right does not
exist by statute. As the Supreme Court has held, “We will not ‘notice error which has been invited
by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal.’” Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269
Va. 451, 525, 619 S.E.2d 16, 58 (2005) (quoting Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400,
177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970)); see also Rowe v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 495, 501-03, 675 S.E.2d
161, 164-65 (2009) (holding that the defendant’s counsel invited error when counsel argued at trial
that assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, for which the defendant was never indicted,
was a lesser-included offense of attempted capital murder of a law enforcement officer – but then
argued on appeal that the defendant’s conviction for assault and battery of a law enforcement officer
was improper because it was not a lesser-included offense).
Because appellant’s trial counsel invited the same error in the trial court that is now the basis
of this assignment of error to this Court, we will not notice that error on appeal. See Muhammad,
269 Va. at 525, 619 S.E.2d at 58. Therefore, appellant’s challenge based on the conditional nature
of her guilty pleas to the two misdemeanor charges is not properly before this Court. Accordingly,
we dismiss appellant’s appeal as it pertains to her two misdemeanor convictions. See Hill, 47
Va. App. at 675-76, 626 S.E.2d at 463-64.
under the existing caselaw at that time. Here, however, in addressing appellant’s first
assignment of error, we have concluded that the trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to
suppress evidence that supported appellant’s felony and misdemeanor convictions.
2
We note also that appellant never made a motion to withdraw her conditional guilty plea
to either the misdemeanor or felony charges.
-7-
III. CONCLUSION
The record establishes that appellant had slurred speech, was driving at night without the
benefit of either her headlights or her taillights, failed to follow Officer Lancaster’s instructions,
failed to perform satisfactorily two field sobriety tests, had watery eyes, fumbled with her phone,
smelled of alcohol, and admitted to consuming some alcohol. Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must since it was the prevailing party below, a rational
trier of fact could find that Officer Lancaster had probable cause to arrest appellant for driving under
the influence. Thus, the trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress the
evidence on the ground that Officer Lancaster lacked probable cause to arrest appellant for driving
under the influence. Accordingly, we affirm both of appellant’s felony convictions. Because appeal
of her two misdemeanor convictions is not properly before us, however, we dismiss appellant’s
appeal of the two misdemeanor convictions.
Affirmed in part and
dismissed in part.
-8-