# Joint Appendix — Oklahoma v. Castleberry > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0794%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 469 U.S. 979 ## Text (3) DEC 21 1984 No. 83-2126 CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1983 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Petitioner, Vv. TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY and NICHOLAS RAINERI Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JO'NT APPENDIX DAVID W. LEE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF, CRIMINAL AND FEDERAL DIVISIONS 112 State Capitol Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405) 521-3921 COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER CHARLES FOSTER COX Attor at Law 500 N.W. 13th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 (405) 235-7507 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS ‘ PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 11, 1984 VW CERTIORARI GRANTED NOVEMBER 5, 1984 % J -i- INDEX Page Relevant Docket Entries in CRF-81- 2676, State of Oklahoma v. Timothy R. Castleberry, Dis- trict Court, Cklahoma County, TE @Q6e6eeGGeeecerveec ss Relevant Docket Entries in CRF-81- 2678, State of Oklahoma v. Nicholas Raineri and Timothy R. Castleberry, District Court, Oklahoma County ....+.++++s++s 2 Relevant Docket Entries in the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma in F-82- 227 and P-82-228. ode 9) ON (a tT ia a 4 Motion to Suppress in CRF-81-2676. ... 5 Motion to Suppress in CRF-81-2678. ... 7? Judgment and Sentence on Conviction in CRF-81-2676, State of Oklahoma v. Timothy R. Castleberry ..... 9 Judgment and Sentence on Conviction in CRF-81-2678, State of Okla- homa v. Timothy R. Castleberry, Count I . > >. . >. > >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. 1 2 Judgment and Sentence on Conviction in CRF-81-2678, State of Okla- homa v. Timothy R. Castleberry, Count II. >. >. >. > >. 7 >. >. >. >. > > >. 15 -ii- Judgment and Sentence on Conviction in CRF-81-2678, State of Okla- homa v. Nicholas Raineri, Count I . * * . > > * . . . . > * . . Judgment and Sentence on Conviction in CRF-81-2678, State of Okla- homa v. Nicholas Raineri, Count II. > . . >. * * . . . . * . . Opinion of Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Okla- homa, F-82-227 and F-82-228 .. Order Denying Rehearing, F-82-227 and F-82-228. - BS oe ey Ser Se ae 18 21 24 39 DISTRICT COURT FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES State of Oklahoma v. Timothy R. Castileberry Date Description 6-10-81 Information Filed 6-11-81 Arraignment. The Defendant ap- pears in person and with his attor- ney, Charles Cox. Bond is set at $2,000.00. 7-1-81 Preliminary hearing. Defendant Castleberry represented by Charles Cox is bound over for trial. 7-2-81 Defendant Castleberry formally arraigned. Defendant appears repre- sented by Charles Cox. 8-18-81 Motion to Suppress filed on be- half of Defendant. 9-23 & 24-81 Jury trial for Defendant Castleberry. Defendant is represent- ed at trial by Charles Cox. Defen- dant Castleberry is found guilty of the lesser included offense of Pos- session of Cocaine and the jury set his punishment at imprisonment for a term of eight (8) years. 10-16-81 Defendant Castleberry is formal- ly sentenced as set forth above. 11-3-81 Notice of Appeal filed on behalf on Defendant Castleberry. 2 DISTRICT COURT FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA RELEVANT eet ENTRIES State of Oklahoma v. Nicholas Raineri an . stleberr Date Description 6-10-81 Information Filed 6-11-81 Arraignment. The Defendants Castleberry and Raineri appear in person and with their attorney, Charles Cox. Bond is set at $4,000 for both. 7-1-81 Preliminary hearing. Defendants Castleberry and Raineri represented by Charles Cox and both bound over for trial. 7-2-81 Defendants Castleberry and Rain- eri formally arraigned. Defendants appear represented by Charles Cox. 8-18-81 Motion to Suppress filed on be- half of Defendants Castleberry and Raineri. 9-1 & 2-81 Jury trial for Defendants Castleberry and Raineri. Defendants are represented at trial by Charles Cox. Defendant Castleberry is found guilty of the offense of Possession of Methaquaalone With Intent to Distribute in Count I and the jury set his punishment at imprisonment for a term of ten (10) years with a fine of $5,000.00; in Count II the Defendant Castleberry is found guilty 3 of Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Distribute and the jury set his punishment at imprisonment for a term of seven (7) years and a fine of $5000.00. Defendant Raineri is found guilty of the crime of Possession of Metagquaalone With Intent to Distri- bute in Count I and the jury set his punishment at imprisonment for a term of seven (7) years with a fine of $5,000.00. In Count II the Defendant Raineri is found guilty of Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Distri- bute and the jury set punishment at imprisonment for a term of seven (7) years and a fine of $5000.00. 10-16-81 Defendants Castleberry and Raineri are formally sentenced as set forth above, with each sentence on Count II to run concurrently with Count I and the fines as to Count II are suspended. 11-3-81 Notice of Appeal filed on behalf on Defendants Castleberry and Rain- eri. J RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN F-82-227 AND F-82-228 5-13-82 Defendant Castleberry's and Rai- neri's Motion to Consolidate Appeals in Case Nos. F-82-227 and F-82-228 filed. 7-23-83 Order of Court of Criminal Appeals granting Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Appeals. 1-23-83 Opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in consolidated Case Nos. F-82-227 and F-82-228. 2-13-84 State files Petition for Re- hearing. 4-5-84 Order Denying Rehearing. 5-9-84 Order Staying Execution of Man- date. 5 IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, vs. No. CRF-81-2676 TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY ed Defendant. MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW the defendant above named and moves this Court to suppress as evi- dence against him in this case, all evi- dence, whether tangible or intangible, obtained as a result of the Defendant's search or arrest for the reason that the search of the Defendant and the arrest of the Defendant was illegal and in violation of the Defendant's rights under the United States Constitution and Statutes and Con- stitution of the State of Oklahoma. 6 /s/ Charles F. Cox CHARLES F. COX 500 Northwest 13th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Telephone: (405) 235-7507 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) I, Charles F. Cox, of lawful age and having been duly sworn, depose and state as follows: That I am the attorney for defendant in the above and foregoing Motion to Suppress; that I have read said Motion and am familiar with the contents thereof; that the statements and facts contained in said Motion are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Charles F. Cox Charles F. Cox Subscribed and sworn to before me this /s/ 22 day of /s/ July , 1981. /s/ Linda Campbell NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: /s/ Aug. 2, 1981 - I® THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, No. CRF-81-2678 vs. TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY and NICHOLAS RAINERI me ee ee ee ee ee ee Defendants. MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW the defendants above named and move this Court to suppress as evi- dence against them in this case, all evi- dence, whether tangible or intangible, obtained as a result of the Defendants' search or arrest for the reason that the search of the Defendants and the arrest of the Defendants was illegal and in viola- tion of the Defendants’ rights under the United States Constitution and Statutes and Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. 8 /s/ Charles F. Cox CHARLES F. COX 500 Northwest 13th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Telephone: (405) 235-7507 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) I, Charles F. Cox, of lawful age and having been duly sworn, depose and state as follows: That I am the attorney for defendant in the above and foregoing Motion to Suppress; that I have read said Motion and am familiar with the contents thereof; that the statements and facts contained in said Motion are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Charles F. Cox Charles F. Cox Subscribed and.sworn to before me this /s/_22 day of /s/ July , 1981. /s/ Linda Campbell NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: /s/ Aug. 2, 1981 i) THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) Ss. OKLAHOMA COUNTY ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SITTING IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, -Vs- No. CRF-81-2676 TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY, mee ee ee ee ee ee ee Defendant. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ON CONVICTION Now, on this 16th day of October, 1981, the same being a juridical day of said court, and the time duly appointed for judgment in the above-entitled cause, and said cause coming on for judgment, and the defendant TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY being personally present in open court, and being duly represented at all appearances before the court by his attorney of re- cord, CHARLES FOSTER COX, and having been legally charged with the offense of POS- SESSION OF A CONLROLLED DANGEROUS SUB- STANCE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, TO-WIT: COCAINE, and having been duly informed of the nature of the charge and having been duly arraigned thereon, and having duly and properly pleaded not guilty to said offense after having been duly advised of 10 his rights; and having been duly and legally tried and convicted of the crime of TO THE INCLUDED OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE, TO-WIT: COCAINE, and the defendant having been asked by the court whether he has any legal cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating ro sufficient cause why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against the defendant, and none appearing to the court, it is the judgment of the court that said defendant is guilty of the crime of TO THE INCLUDED OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE, TO-WIT: COCAINE It is Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court that TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY is sentenced to a term of EIGHT (8) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma; and said defen- dant is committed to the said Department of Corrections at the Oklahoma State Pen- itentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, pursuant to the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of said Depart- ment, for the crime of TO THE INCLUDED OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DAN- GEROUS SUBSTANCE, TO-WIT: COCAINE; said term of sentence to begin at and from the delivery of the defendant to the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Ckla- homa; and that said defendant pay the cost of this prosecution, taxed at $77.00, for which judgment is' hereby rendered against the defendant; and thereupon the defendant is by the court notified of his riaht of appeal. 11 It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the court that the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, transport said defendant to the said State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and that the War- den of said penitentiary detain the said defendant according to this judgment, sen- tence and order, and that the clerk of this court, do immediately certify, under the seal of the court, and deliver to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, two copies of this judgment, sentence and order, one of the copies to accompany the body of the said defendant to said peni- tentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and to be left therewith at the said penitentiary, said copy to be warrant and authority for the imprisonment of the said defendant and the other copy to be warrant and authority of said Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Okla- homa, for the transportation and imprison- ment of the said defendant as hereinbefore provided. Said last named copy to be re- turned to the Clerk of said Court with the proceedings thereunder endorsed thereon. (Seal) /s/ Homer Smith HOMER SMITH, District Judge Attest: DAN GRAY, ~ Court Clerk By /s/ Kim Williams , Deputy Court Clerk 12 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) SS. OKLAHOMA COUNTY ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SITTING IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, -vs- No. CRF-81-2678 TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY, me ee ee ee ee ee Defendant. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ON CONVICTION Now, on this 16th day of October, 1981, the same being a juridical day of said court, and the time duly appointed for judgment in the above-entitled cause, and said cause coming on for judgment, and the defendant TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY being personally present in open court, and being duly represented at all appearances before the court by his attorney of re- cord, CHARLES F. COX, and having been legally charged with the offense of COUNT 1: POSSESSION OF METHAQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, and having been duly informed of the nature of the charge and having been duly arraigned thereon, and having duly and properly pleaded not guilty to said offense after having been duly advised of his rights; and having been duly and legally tried and convicted 13 of the crime of COUNT 1: POSSESSION OF METHAQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE and the defendant having been asked by the court whether he has any legal cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against the defendant, and none appearing to the court, it is the judgment of the court that said defendant is guilty of the crime of COUNT 1: pos- SESSION OF METHAQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE It is Therefore, Ordered, Ad judged and Decreed by the Court that TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY is sentenced to a term of TEN (10) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma; and said defendant is committed to the said Department of Cor- rections at the Oklahoma State Penitenti- ary at McAlester, Oklahoma, pursuant to the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of said Department, for the crime of COUNT 1: POSSESSION OF METHAQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE; said term of sentence to begin at and from the delivery of the defendant to the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAl- ester, Oklahoma; and that said defendant pay the cost of this prosecution, taxed at $45.76, for which judgment is hereby rendered against the defendant; and there- upon the defendant is by the court noti- fied of his right of appeal. 14 It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the court that the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, transport said defendant to the said State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and that the War- den of said penitentiary detain the said defendant according to this judgment, sen- tence and order, and that the clerk of this court, do immediately certify, under the seal of the court, and deliver to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, two copies of this judgment, sentence and order, one of the copies to accompany the body of the said defendant to said peni- tentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and to be left therewith at the said penitentiary, said copy to be warrant and authority for the imprisonment of the said defendant and the other copy to be warrant and authority of said Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Okla- homa, for the transportation and imprison- ment of the said defendant as hereinbefore provided. Said last named copy to be re- turned to the Clerk of said Court with the proceedings thereunder endorsed thereon. (Seal) (DEFENDANT TO PAY A FINE OF $5,000.00) /s/ CHARLES L. OWENS CHARLES L. OWENS, District Judge Attest: DAN GRAY, _ Court Clerk By /s/ Mary Evelyn Moncrief, Deputy Court Clerk 15 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) Ss. OKLAHOMA COUNTY ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SITTING IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, -vVs- No. CRF-81-2678 TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY, ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Defendant. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ON CONVICTION Now, on this 16th day of October, 1981, the same being a juridical day of said court, and the time duly appointed for judgment in the above-entitled cause, and said cause coming on for judgment, and the defendant TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY being personally present in open court, and being duly represented at all appearances kefore the court by his attorney of re- cord, CHARLES F. COX, and having been legally charged with the offense of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, and having been duly informed of the nature of the charge and having been duly arraigned thereon, and having duly and properly pleaded not guilty to said offense after having been duly ad- vised of his rights; and having been duly 16 and legally tried and convicted of the crime of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE and the cefen- dant having been asked by the court whe- ther he has any legal cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pro- nounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against the defendant, and none appearing to the court, it is the judgment of the court that said defendant is guilty of the crime of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE It is Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court that TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY is sentenced to a term of SEVEN (7) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma; and said defen- dant is committed to the said Department of Corrections at the Oklahoma State Pen- itentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, pur- suant to the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of said Department, for the crime of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE; said term of sentence to begin at and from the delivery of the defendant to the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma; and that said defen- dant pay the cost of this prosecution, taxed at $45.75, for which judgment is hereby rendered against the defendant; and thereupon the defendant is by the court notified of his right of appeal. 17 It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the court that the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, transport said defendant to the said State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and that the War- den of said penitentiary detain the said defendant according to this judgment, sen- tence and order, and that the clerk of this court, do immediately certify, under the seal of the court, and deliver to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, two copies of this judgment, se-tence and order, one of the copies to accompany the body of the said defendant to said peni- tentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and to be left therewith at the said penitentiary, said copy to be warrant and authority for the imprisonment of the said defendant and the other copy to be warrant and authority of said Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Okla- homa, for the transportation and imprison- ment of the said defendant as hereinbefore provided. Said last named copy to be re- turned to the Clerk of said Court with the proceedings thereunder endorsed thereon. (Seal) (THIS COUNT 2 TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH COUNT 1) /s/ CHARLES L. OWENS CHARLES L. OWENS, District Judge Attest: DAN GRAY, Court Clerk By /s/ Mary Evelyn Moncrief, Deputy Court Clerk 18 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss. OKLAHOMA COUNTY ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SITTING IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, ) ) -vVs- ) No. CRF-81-2678 ) NICHOLAS RAINERI, ) ) ) Defendant. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ON CONVICTION Now, on this 16th day of October, 1981, the same being a juridical day of said court, and the time duly appointed for judgment in the above-entitled cause, and said cause coming on for judgment, and the defendant NICHOLAS RAINERI being per- sonally present in open court, and being duly represented at all appearances before the court by his attorney of record, CHARLES F. COX, and having been legally charged with the offense of COUNT 13: POSSESSION OF METHAQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, and having been duly informed of the nature of the charge and having been duly arraigned thereon, and having duly and properly pleaded not guilty to said offense after having been duly ad- vised of his rights; and having been duly and legally tried and convicted of the 19 crime of COUNT 13: POSSESSION OF METH- AQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE and the defendant having been asked by the court whether he has any legal cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause to show why judaqment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against the defendant, and none appearing to the court, it is the judgment of the court that said defendant is guilty of the crime of COUNT 1: POS- SESSION OF METHAQUAALONE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE It is Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court that NICHOLAS RAINERI is sentenced to a term of nine (9) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma; and said defendant is commit- ted to the said Department of Corrections at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, pursuant to the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of said Department, for the crime of COUNT 1: POSSESSION OF METHAQUAALCNE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE; said term of sentence to begin at and from the delivery of the defendant to the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAl- ester, Oklahoma; and that said defendant pay the cost of this prosecution, taxed at $45.76, for which judgment is hereby rendered against the defendant; and there- upon the defendant is by the court noti- fied of his right of appeal. 20 It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the court that the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, transport said defendant to the said State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and that the War- den of said penitentiary detain the said defendant according to this judgment, sen- tence and order, and that the clerk of this court, do immediately certify, under the seal of the court, and deliver to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, two copies of this judgment, sentence and order, one of the copies to accompany the body of the said defendant to said peni- tentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and to be left therewith at the said penitentiary, said copy to be warrant and authority for the imprisonment of the said defendant and the other copy to be warrant and authority of said Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Okla- homa, for the transportation and imprison- ment of the said defendant as hereinbefore provided. Said last named copy to be re- turned to the Clerk of said Court with the proceedings thereunder endorsed thereon. (Seal) (DEFENDANT TO PAY A FINE OF $5,000.00) /s/ CHARLES L. OWENS CHARLES L. OWENS, District Judge Attest: DAN GRAY, Court Clerk By /s/ Mary Evelyn Moncrief, Deputy Court Clerk 21 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss. OKLAHOMA COUNTY ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SITTING IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) -vVs- ) No. CRF-81-2678 ) NICHOLAS RAINERI, ) ) ) Defendant. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ON CONVICTION Now, on this 16th day of October, 1981, the same being a juridical day of said court, and the time duly appointed for judgment in the above-entitled cause, and said cause coming on for judgment, and the defendant NICHOLAS RAINERI being per- sonally present in open court, and being duly represented at all appearances before the court by his attorney of record, CHARLES F. COX, and having been legally charged with the offense of COUNT 2: POSSESSICN OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, and having been duly informed of the nature of the charge and having been duly arraigned thereon, and having duly and properly pleaded not guilty to said offense after having been duly ad- vised of his rights; and having been duly and legally tried and convicted of the 22 crime of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE and the defen- dant having been asked by the court whe- ther he has any legal cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pro- nounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he stating no sufficient cause why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against the defendant, and none appearing to the court, it is the judgment of the court that said defendant is guilty of the crime of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE It is Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court that NICHOLAS RAINERI is sentenced to a term of SEVEN (7) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma; and said defendant is committed to the said Department of Cor- rections at the Cklahoma State Peniten- tiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, pursuant to the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of said Department, for the crime of COUNT 2: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE; said term of sentence to begin at and from the delivery of the defendant to the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Okla- homa; and that said defendant pay the cost of this prosecution, taxed at $45.75, for which judgment is hereby rendered against the defendant; and thereupon the defendant is by the court notified of his right of appeal. 23 It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the court that the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, transport said defendant to the said State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and that the War- den of said penitentiary detain the said defendant according to this judgment, sen- tence and order, and that the clerk of this court, do immediately certify, under the seal of the court, and deliver to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, two copies of this judgment, sentence and order, one of the copies to accompany the body of the said defendant to said peni- tentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, and to be left therewith at the said penitentiary, said copy to be warrant and authority for the imprisonment of the said defendant and the other copy to be warrant and authority of said Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Okla- homa, for the transportation and imprison- ment of the said defendant as hereinbefore provided. Said last named copy to be re- turned to the Clerk of said Court with the proceedings thereunder endorsed thereon. (Seal) (THIS COUNT 2 TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH COUNT 1) /s/ CHARLES L. OWENS CHARLES L. OWENS, District Judge Attest: DAN GRAY, _ a Court Clerk By /s/ Mary Evelyn Moncrief , Deputy Court Clerk 24 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA No. F-82-227 No. F-82-228 TOMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY and NICHOLAS RAINERI Appellants, Vv. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. [Filed January 23, 1984] OPINION BRETT, Judge: Timothy R. Castleberry and Nicholas Raineri, appellants, were charged with two (2) counts each of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-81-2678. The jury found the appellants guilty on both counts, and assessed punishment for 25 Raineri at nine (9) years' imprisonment and a fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for Count 1 and seven (7) years' imprisonment plus a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine for Count 2; and, for Cas- tleberry, ten (10) years' imprisonment plus a fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for Count 1 and seven (7) years' imprisonment plus a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine for Count 2. The trial court sentenced the appellants according- ly, additionally ordering the sentences to run concurrently and suspending the fine for Count 2 as to both appellants. Appellant Castleberry was separately convicted of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Cocaine, in Case No. CRF-82-2676 in the Oklahoma County District Court. The trial court sen- tenced him to eight (8) years' impri- sonment. The appeals from the judgments 26 and sentences are consolidated since the same factual circumstances are involved in each case. At approximately noontime on June 9, 1981, Oklahoma City Police Officer R.D. Taylor received a telephone call from a previously unknown confidential informant who told him that two men, one named Castleberry, were staying in Room 113 of a motel in Oklahoma City, driving a blue Thunderbird with Florida license plates and carrying various narcotics in blue Suitcases. The informant also gave phy- sical descriptions of the men to the officer. Officer Taylor proceeded immediately to the location, observed a vehicle matching the informant's description in front of the specified room, and dis- covered, from the motel clerk, that a man named Castleberry was registered in 27 that room. He then returned to his car, positioned some five parking spaces from the other vehicle, and waited for back- up assistance to arrive. After several minutes, Officer Taylor observed’ the appellants emerge from the room and put several suitcases that matched the informant's description into the trunk of the car. At this point, Officer Taylor announced himself as a police officer, approached the car with his badge in one hand and his weapon in the other, and told the appellants to place their hands on the car. Raineri did as ordered, but Castleberry hastily closed the trunk lid and threw a small white object into the car. During a struggle which ensued between Officer Taylor and Castleberry, Castleberry reached up, locked the car door and shut it. 28 At this point, Officer Citty ar- rived and opened the trunk of the car with keys Officer Taylor had removed from the door of the car. The officers opened the suitcases, found narcotics and placed the appellants under arrest. Officer Citty then searched the interior of the car and discovered a white Band- Aid box which contained a_ substance later determined to be cocaine. Appellants’ sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in overrul- ing their motion to suppress, thereby admitting evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest, search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment of our federal con- stitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior appro- val by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, 29 subject only to a few specifically estab- lished and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The exceptions are jealously and carefully drawn, and there must be a show- ing by those who seek exemption that the exingencies [sic] of the situation made that course imperative. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). Thus, it is incumbent on the State to show why the warrantless search of the car and its contents was permissible in the case at bar. The State first contends that the search was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest. Appellants challenge both the legality of the arrest and the scope of the search. Although Officer Taylor testified that he did not arrest the appellants un- 30 til after the suitcases were opened, the appellants were not free to move after the officer advanced toward them with revolver drawn and ordered them to place their hands on the car. This Court has held that when an officer restrains the indi- vidual's freedom of movement, that person is under arrest. Wallace v. State, 620 P.2d 410 (Ok1.Cr. 1980), Castellano v. State, 585 P.2d 361 (Okl.Cr. 1978). Under the circumstances, the appellants in the present case were under arrest from the moment Officer Taylor approached them and announced his identity. Appellants submit that the arrest was unlawful because Officer Taylor did not at that time have probable cause to make it. The Oklahoma statutes allow a warrantless arrest if the officer has reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed by the person arrested. 22 0.S.1981, § 196. 31 If at the time of arrest the facts and circumstances within the arresting offi- cer's knowledge and of which he had rea- sonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense had been or was being committed, probable cause is estab- lished and the arrest is lawful. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed. 2d 142 (1964), Greene v. State, 508 P.2d 1095 (Okl.Cr. 1973). In this case, appellants argue that the officer had no basis for judging his informant to be reliable or the informa- tion trustworthy. We disagree. In Grimes v. State, 528 P.2d 1397 (Ok1.Cr. 1974), this Court stated that an infor- mant's trustworthiness could be estab- lished if independent facts within the officer's knowledge corroborated the information. Here, the information was 32 sufficiently corroborated as the only detail not confirmed before the arrest was the presence of narcotics in the wit- cases, an allegation Officer Taylor could not lawfully verify before the arrest under the given circumstances. The search made subsequent to the arrest, however, cannot be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest, for it far exceeded the permissible bounds of such a search, that is, the area within the arrestee's immediate control from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Both appellants were restrained--one was handcuffed, the other was on the ground with an officer pointing a gun at him--at the time of the search. The car doors anc trunk were locked, so once the officer gained posses- 33 sion of the keys, there was no danger of appellants’ procuring a weapon or destroy- ing evidence from the interior of the car. A search incident to the arrest would therefore justify neither a search of the locked car nor a search of the suitcases therein. The State's only other justification offered is that the warrantless search was lawful because the officers had probable cause to believe that narcotics were in the s"itcases and exigent circumstances required prompt action. The so-called automobile exception on which the State relies was first recognized in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Cases subsequent to Carroll caused some confusion about when containers in cars may be searched, but the Supreme Court clarified the law in 34 United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). If the officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband somewhere in the car, but he does not know exactly where, he may search the entire car as well as any containers found therein. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Cham- bers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). If, on the other hand, the officer only has probable cause to believe there is contraband in a speci- fic container in the car, he must detain the container and delay his search until a search wariant is obtained. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 35 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979); United States v. Chad- wick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed. 2d 538 (1977). The Ross court adopted Chief Justice Burger's distinction set out in his con- curring opinion to Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), wherein he explained that: {I]t was the luggage being trans- ported by respondent at the time of the arrest, not the automobile in which it was being carried, that was the suspected locus of the contra- band. The relationship between the automobile and tine contraband was purely coincidental, as in Chadwick. The fact that the suitcase was resting in the trunk of the automo- bile at the time of respondent's arrest does not turn this into an ‘automobile’ exception case. The Court need say no more. (Citations omitted). Id., at 766-767, 99 S.Ct. at 2594. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. at 813, 102 S.Ct. at 2166-67, 72 L.Ed.2d at 586- 87. The case at bar clearly falls within the Chadwick - Sanders line of cases. The 36 suspected locations of the contraband were the suitcases and the Band-Aid box which Castleberry threw into the car. Accord- ingly, we hold that the motion to suppress was erroneously overruled. The officers should have detained the containers until a search warrant had been obtained. We are not dealing with formalities. The presence of a search warrant serves a high function. Absent some grave emergency, the Fourth Amendment has interposed a magis- trate between the citizen and the police. This was done not to shield criminals nor to make the home a safe haven for illegal activities. It was done so that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals. Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home. We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence of ae search warrant without a showing by those 37 who seek exemption from the consti- tutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 445-456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948). For the reasons herein stated, the judgments and sentences appealed from should be, and the same are hereby, RE- VERSED. CORNISH, J., specially concurs. BUSSEY, P.J., dissents. CORNISH, Judge, specially concurring. I fully concur in Judge Brett's analysis and application of the Supreme Court's precedents in this case. I would simply note that it has been settled in this State for several years that probable cause will not support a warrantless search in the absence of an emergency, i.e., “exigent circumstances": 38 {I]t is without question that the existence of probable cause alone will not satisfy a warrantless search, Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Whitehead v. State, 546 P.2d 273 (OkI.Cr.1975;. Ordinarily, if an officer has probable cause to make a search, then he should go to a magistrate for a warrant authori- zing such a search. Only when there are ‘exigent circumstances’ in addi- tion to the existence of probable cause may ar. officer legitimately make a search without a warrant. Blackburn v. State, 575 P.2d 638, 642 (Ok1.Cr. 1978). Absent probable cause to search the entire car, the officers were only author- ized to seize the suspect containers and hold them pending issuance of a search warrant. Although probable cause existed with regard to the containers, no exigent circumstances were shown such as to just- ify a warrantless search. 39 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TIMOTHY R. CASTLEBERRY and ) NICHOLAS RAINERI, ) ) Appellants, ) ) -Vvs- ) Case No. ) F-8 2-227 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) F-82-228 ) Appellee. ) ORDER DENYING REHEARING In an Opinion dated January 23, 1984, this Court reversed the convictions for drug offenses in Oklahoma County Case Nos. CRF-82-2676 and CRF-82-2678. On February 13, 1984, the State filed a petition re- questing this Court to grant a rehearing. NOW THEREFORE, after considering the petition and reviewing the record, this Court finds that the petition for rehear- ing should be, and the same is, DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 40 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this /s/_ 5th day of /s/April, 1984. /s/Hez. J. Busse . , ng ge /s/Tom Brett , Judge ATTEST: /s/Susan Hampton, Deputy Clerk --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0794%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.