Case Title: Morris v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 687, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
1At trial, Morris waived his right to counsel and proceeded pro se, with a public defender
acting as stand-by counsel.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANTHONY MORRIS,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 687, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Cr.A. Nos. S02-06-0195I 
§                   S02-06-0196I
§                   S02-06-0197I
 
Submitted: July 11, 2003
  Decided:   September 8, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 8th day of September 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Anthony Morris, was found guilty by a
Superior Court jury of Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Possession
of Drug Paraphernalia, and Resisting Arrest.  He was sentenced to a total of 32
years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 15 years for decreasing
levels of probation.  This is Morris’s direct appeal. 1
2No pretrial suppression motion was filed.
3The Governor’s Task Force is a special law enforcement unit that targets high crime areas
and probationers who are high-risk offenders.
-2-
(2)
In this appeal, Morris claims that the police lacked probable cause
to arrest him, thereby violating his state and federal constitutional rights.  On the
day of trial prior to jury selection, Morris raised the issue of a lack of probable
cause for his arrest.  The judge refused to consider the issue, stating that it had
been raised too late.2
(3)
The evidence at trial established the following.  On May 28, 2002,
the Governor’s Task Force investigated a report of drug activity on Polly
Branch Road, located east of Selbyville in Sussex County, Delaware.3  The area
is known to law enforcement as a high crime area where drugs are sold openly.
An informant contacted the Task Force to report that Morris was selling drugs
and provided a detailed description of Morris’s clothing and his location.
Officer John McColgan, Corporal Rodney Layfield, and Sergeant Monroe
Hudson of the Delaware State Police, accompanied by Probation Officer Mark
Dawson, drove in an unmarked vehicle onto Polly Branch Road trying to locate
Morris. 
4Crack cocaine was found on Sturgis, who subsequently pleaded guilty to Possession With
Intent to Deliver Cocaine. 
-3-
(4)
As the officers proceeded down the road, they noticed Morris
standing with two other men.  Morris began to walk towards their vehicle, but,
as the vehicle came closer, he suddenly appeared alarmed.  Morris then reached
into his pocket, pulled out a small white object and tossed it behind him into
some bushes.  As the officers got out of their vehicle, Morris attempted to flee.
Sergeant Hudson ordered him to stop, but he did not do so.  After chasing
Morris a short distance, Sergeant Hudson was able to subdue and handcuff
him.  Morris was searched and $255 was found in his possession.  The two
men standing with Morris, Christopher Sturgis and Lamar Morris, Morris’s
cousin, also were searched.4
(5)
Corporal Layfield searched the area where he had seen Morris
tossing the white object and located a white pill bottle.  A white powdery
substance was found inside the bottle, which later was determined to be 24
pieces of crack cocaine weighing a total of 2.58 grams.  No paraphernalia such
as a pipe for personal use of the cocaine was found. 
(6)
At Morris’s trial, Sergeant Hudson, who testified as an expert in
the field of narcotics investigation, stated that, in his opinion, Morris possessed
5Pennewell v. State, Del. Supr., No. 410, 2002, Veasey, C.J. (April 29, 2003) (citing
Barnett v. State, 691 A.2d 614, 616 (1997)).
6Id.
-4-
the crack cocaine with the intention of selling it.  He based his opinion on the
quantity of the drugs, the lack of paraphernalia for personal use of the drugs,
the amount of money found in Morris’s possession, and the fact that Morris
was unemployed.  
(7)
Both Sturgis and Lamar Morris testified on the defendant’s behalf.
They stated that they did not see the defendant throw the bottle behind him.
Morris’s mother testified that she had given Morris the money found on him at
the time of his arrest.  Finally, Morris himself testified that he did not possess
any drugs on the day of his arrest.  
(8)
This Court reviews a denial by the Superior Court of an untimely
motion to suppress under an abuse of discretion standard.5  A motion to
suppress filed on the eve of trial need not be considered in the absence of
exceptional circumstances.6  
(9)
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court
in this case.  The record reflects no exceptional circumstances such as would
have warranted consideration by the Superior Court of an untimely motion to
7Maxwell v. State, 624 A.2d 926, 928 (Del. 1993).
-5-
suppress.  Moreover, even if the Superior Court had considered Morris’s
argument that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, there was no basis
for granting a motion to suppress on that basis in any case.  The informant’s
description of Morris’s clothing and location, the fact that the area where Morris
was located was known for drug activity, Morris’s alarmed reaction to the
officers’ arrival, the officers’ observation that Morris threw an object behind
him after the police arrived, Morris’s attempt to flee, and the subsequent
retrieval of the bottle containing a white powdery substance—all clearly
constituted probable cause for Morris’s arrest.7  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice