I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - KA - 0 0 1 9 8 - CO A ED DI E M CCOY, J R. A/ K/ A E DDI E W . M CCOY, J R. A/ K/ A W AYNE M CCOY A/ K/ A E DDI E W AYNE M CC OY , J R. A/ K/A E DD I E M CC OY AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 10/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . ROBER T B. HEL F RI CH CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: F ORRES T COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES HUNT E R N OL AN AI KE NS AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : J O H N R . H E N R Y J R . LAURA HOG AN TEDDER DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : PATRI CI A A . THO M AS BU RCH ELL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY TR I A L C O U RT D I SPO SI TI O N : CO N V I CT ED O F PO SSESSI O N O F A CO NTR OLLED SUBSTAN CE W I TH I NT E NT T O DI S T RI BU T E AND SENTENC ED A S A H AB I TUA L OFFEND ER T O L I F E I N T HE CU S T ODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS W I T HOUT T HE POSS I BI LI TY O F P AR OLE O R EA RLY RE LEA SE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 21/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. E ddi e M cC oy w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of cocai ne w i t h t he i nt ent t o di s tr i but e.

### 2

T he cha r ge ca m e af

t erof f i cer s f ound 2. 7 gr ams of

coca i ne, s m al l pl as t i c bags , s cal es , a gun, a n d b ra ss k n u c k les in h is g irlfrien d ’s a p a rtm e n t. ¶2 . O n appea l , M cC oy chal l e ng e s the a dmi s s i on o f thi s e vi de nc e . H e a r gues i t w as unl aw f ul l y s ei zed i n vi ol at i on of hi s Four th A m endmentr i ght s . B utFour th A m endm ent rig h ts a re p e rso n a l. A n d h e re M c C o y fa iled to e sta b lish th a t h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w er e vi ol at ed. I ns t ead, a tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, M cC oy s tr es s ed thathe d id n o t sta y w ith hi s gi r l f r i end i n the apa r t m ent . T hus , he f ai l ed t o s how he had a l egi t i m at e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy i n the apa r t m ent . A ddi t i onal l y, w e f i nd the s ear ch w as j us t i f i ed f ortw o other i ndepende ntr eas ons — exi gentci r cumst ance s and cons ent . So t he drug e vi dence w as p ro p e rl y a d m itte d . ¶3. M cC oy al s o chal l enges the s uf f i ci ency of the evi dence . H e s ugges t s the St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthathe poss es s ed the drugs . T o pr ove cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, the St at e had t o s how M cC oy know i ngl y e xer ci s ed contr ol ove rthe drugs . A nd M c C o y c laim s th a t, sin c e h e d id n o t o w n o r ex c lu siv e ly co n tro l th e a p a rtm e n t, th e S tate c o u ld notp rove he know i ngl y contr ol l ed w hatw as i ns i de. B utw hen M cC oy, w ho w as i n the apart m entatthe t i m e, r eal i zed pol i ce of f i cer s had knocked on t he doorand w er e i nt ervi ew i ng hi s gi r l f r i end, he br oke f

ort he bathr oom and t r i ed t o sl am t he door . W hen of f i cer s f ol l ow ed, they f ound hi m hover i ng overthe tr as h can w here cocai ne and ba ggi es w er e l at erf ound. Fr om thi s , combi ned w i th s cal es and a pi s t ol f ound ne arhi s c l othes i n a notherr oom and the m or e than $1, 200 i n cas h f ound i n hi s pocket , w e fi nd a rea s onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude M c C o y k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d c o c a in e in te n d in g to d is tr ib u te it.

### I n there c ord, M c Co y’ s g i rl f ri e nd ’ s n am e i s s pe l l e d a s b oth “ Ch ant e ” and 1 

### “Sh aunte.” Th is op inio n u ses “Ch ante”—the sp elling usedbyMcC oy . 3 ¶ 4 . B e c a u se w e a lso fin d M c C o y ’s righ t to a sp e e d y trial w a s n o t v io late d a n d h is c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l ca n n o t b e e v a lu a ted o n d ire c t ap p e a l, w e a ffirm h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . Back gr ound I. E ven t

s L eadin g to A rres t ¶5. A conf

i dent i al i nf

or m antt ol d the H att i es bur g P oli ce D epart m ent t hat M cC oy w as s el l i ng drugs outof

uni tA - 7 i n Pi nevi ew A part m ent s . So of f i cer s w entt o the apa r t m entf or a “kn ock and t al k. ” T his i nv est i gati ve m et ho d involves a kno ck o n the doo r and a request t o i nt e r vi e w t he r e s i de nt . Somet i mes thi s l e a ds t o a s e a r c h o f the pr e mi s e s i f

the r e s i de nt c o n s e n ts . ¶6. W hen the o ff

i cers k no cked , M cC oy’ s gi r l f r i end, C hant e R obi ns on, ans w er ed the 1 door . C hant e l i ved i n t he apa r t m entw i th herm other , C ynthi a R obi ns on, w ho l eas ed the a p a r t me n t . W h i l e th e o f f i c e r s we r e t a l k i n g wi th Ch a n t e , M c Co y wa l k e d i n t o th e l i v i n g r o o m. O ff ic e rs n o tic e d M c C o y h a d h is h a n d s s h o v e d in to h is p o c k e ts . ¶7. W hen the off

i cers asked i f M cC oy w oul d s peak t o them t oo, M cC oy dart ed t o t he bathr oom and tr i ed t o shu tthe door . Fear i ng M cC oy w as ei therr etr i evi ng a w eapon or des tr oyi ng evi dence , the of f i cer s r an i nt o t he bathr oom . T hey f ound M cC oy hover ed over a tr a s h c a n a n d e s c o rt e d h im o u ts id e o f t h e a p a rt m e n t to w a it w ith a n o th e r o ff ic e r. ¶8. A tthi s poi nt , C ynthi a and Chan t e g ave perm i ssi on to s ear ch the apa r t m ent . A nd

### McCoy’ s indi ctme nt was am ende d to ref le ct McCoy’ s s tatus as a ha

bit ualoff ende r 2 

### un der M ississipp i Co de Ann otatedsection99 -19 -83 (Rev . 20 07 ). 4 i nsi de the bathr oo m w here M cC oy had fl ed, the offi cers foun d a bag of cocaine i n the tras h can. T hey al so foun d a cup c ont ai ni ng s m al l empt y baggi es . I n C hant e’ s bedr oom , t hey f ound a s etof

s cal es , a gun, and br as s knuckl es . T hey arr es t ed M cC oy. D ur i ng the s ear ch i nci dentt o arr es t , they fou nd m or e than $1, 200 i n cas h i n hi s pocket . M cC oy w as l at er i ndi ct ed f

orpos s es s i on of

2. 7 gr ams of

coca i ne w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e. 2 I I . Supp r e s s i on H

e ar ing ¶9. B ef

or e tr i al , M cC oy’ s couns el f i l ed a m oti on t o supp r es s the evi dence f ound i n t he apart m ent . H e ar gued the of f i cer s ’ s ear ch w as i l l egal beca us e the “knoc k and t al k” w as m e re ly a p re tex t to g e t ar o u n d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s w a rra n t re q u ire m e n t. ¶10. A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, the tw o of f i cer s w ho knocked on the doort es t i f i ed they di d notbel i eve, ba s ed on the i nf or m ant ’ s t i p, they had s uf f i ci entpr obabl e caus e t o obt ai n a w arr ant , hence the “knoc k and t al k. ” See U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 0 (5th C ir . 2001) ( r ecogni zi ng the “‘ knock and t al k’ s tr at egy as a r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i ve t ool w hen of f i cer s s eek t o gai n an occ upant ’ s cons entt o s ear ch or w hen off i cer s r eas onabl y s us pect c rim in a l ac tiv ity ” ); s ee al s o Kentucky v. K i ng , 131 S. C t . 1849, 1860 ( 2011) ( r ecogni zi ng l aw enf or cementm ay have “ent i r el y pr operr eas ons ” f ornot“s eek[ i ng] a s ear ch w arr antas s oon as th e b are m inim u m o f ev iden ce n ee d ed to es tablish p rob ab le ca u se is ac q u ir ed ”). ¶11. B utw hen of

f i cer s knoc ked, a nd a s they w er e t al ki ng t o Chant e, exi gent ci r cumst ance s l ed them t o ent erthe apart m ent . B as ed on M cC oy’ s r eac t i on, they bel i eved he w as ei ther

### 5

he a di ng f

ora wea po n ord e s tr oy i ng e vi de nc e . So the y r a n a f t e rM c Coy t o s t op h i m . T he of f i cer s di d nots ear ch the pr emi s es unt i l C ynthi a gave herw r i t t en cons entt o search the a p a rt m e n t a n d C h a n te g a v e h e r v e rb a l c o n s e n t to s e a rc h h e r b e d ro o m . ¶12. C ynthi a and C hant e al s o t es t i f i ed at the hear i ng. C ynthi a conf i r m ed that , though t he of f i cer s ’ pr es ence m ade he rnervous, she gave hercons entt o s ear ch “f r eel y” bec aus e s he

“ d id n ’t h a v e a n y th in g to h id e .” H o w e v e r, C h a n te’ s te stim o n y w a s m o re e q u iv o c a l. W h ile s he agr eed s he had l ett he of f i cer s i n w hen she answ er ed t he door , she s ai d she onl y gave he r cons entt o s ear ch herbedr oom beca us e the of f i cer s thr eat ened he r . She w as unw aver i ng, how ever , on the f

actM cC oy di d nots t ay i n the apart m entw i th he r . O ne of the of f i cer s had test if ied that C han t e t old hi m M cC oy had been l i ving i n the apartm ent f or several m on ths. B utC hant e di s agr eed. She cl ai m ed s he neve rs ai d M cC oy s t ayed ther e. ¶13. M cC oy’ s gr andmot her w as al s o cal l ed t o the s t and. She t es t i f i ed that M cC oy s t ayed w ith h e r, n o t C h a n te . ¶14. T he ci r cui t j ud ge si zed up t hi s t es t i m ony and concl uded M cC oy di d notoccupy the a p a rtm e n t w ith C h a n te a n d h e r m o th e r. C o n se q u e n tly , h e h a d n o F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts i n the pr operty he c oul d c l ai m w er e vi ol at ed. The j udge al s o f ound the per s on w ho d id have rig h ts— C y n thia— h ad fr ee ly co n sen ted to a sea rch . S o he de n ied M cC o y ’s m o ti o n to supp res s. II I. T ria l ¶15. A ttr i al , the s ame t w o of f i cer s t es t i f

i ed f orthe St at e. T hey des cr i bed the event s t hat l ed to the sei zure of the d rugs, bag gies , scal es, gu n, brass kn uck l es, and cash. A l l of these

### Th e S tate also calledthe o fficer wh o to okthe b ag o f cocain e from th e apartment to 3 

### thecrim e l ab and thecri melab’ s forens ic sci entis t, who conf ir me d thela

b’s te st re sults that the b ag co ntain ed 2 .7 g rams of co caine. 6 ite m s w e re e n te re d in to e v id e n c e . ¶16. T he of

f i cer s t es t i f

i ed how M cC oy had i m m edi at el y run t o the bathr oom w hen he s aw th e m t a l k i n g t o Ch a n t e . An d th e y d e s c r i b e d h o w h e tr i e d t o b l o c k th e m f r o m th e b a th r o o m, and ho w they had found the coca i ne i n the t ras h can h e w as st and i ng ov er. B oth off i cers al so m e n tio n e d th a t, as th e y w e re e sc o rtin g M c C o y o u t o f th e a p a rtm e n t, he y e lled a t C h a n te to “hol d up f

oryours hi t . ” They i nt erpr et ed thi s as M cC oy’ s i ns truct i on t o C hant e t o cl ai m t he cocaine w as hers . ¶17. A tthe cl os e of

the St at e’ s evi dence , M cC oy m oved f ora di r ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch w as 3 deni ed. M cC oy’ s onl y w i tnes s w as hi s gra ndm other , w ho t es t i f i ed M cC oy l i ved w i th herand onl y “eve r [ y] now and then” s t ayed ove rni ghtw i th C hant e. ¶1 8 . T h e jury fou n d M cC o y g u il ty o f po sses sion o f a c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce w ith inten t to di s tr i but e. T he courts ent enced hi m as a habi tual of f endert o l i f

e i n the cus t ody of

t he M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s w ith o u t th e b e n e fit o r p o ss ib ili ty o f p a ro le o r e a rly re le a s e . See M i s s . Co d e An n . § 9 9 - 1 9 - 8 3 ( Re v . 2 0 0 7 ) . Mc Co y i mm e d i a t e l y a p p e a l e d . On a p p e a l, he is re p re se n ted b y th e In d ig e n t A p p e a ls D iv isio n (IA D ) o f th e O ffic e o f S tate P u b li c D efe n d er. I n ad d it ion to the IA D ’s brief, M cC o y file d a su p p lem en tal p ro se b ri ef. See M . R . A . P . 2 8 (b). D i s cus s i on

### 7

I. Motion to S u

pp ress ¶19. B oth br i ef

s s ugges t the i t em s found i n t he apart m ent s houl d have been s uppr es s ed. A s M cC oy and hi s appel l at e couns el s ee i t , t hi s evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e “f rui tof the p o is o n o u s tr e e ,” o b ta in e d in v io la tio n o f t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. S e e P o w e ll v. S ta te , 824 So. 2d 661, 667 (¶ 27) ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 79 8 S o. 2d 12 41 , 12 47 (¶10) ( M i ss. 2 0 0 1 )) . ¶ 2 0 . W h ile th e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le b a rs th e u se o f e v id e n c e fro m u n law fu l se izu re s, F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts a r e p e rs o n a l. W a lke r v . S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 225 ( ¶90) ( M i s s 2005) ( ci t i ng A lder m an v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 39 4 U. S. 16 5, 17 4 ( 19 69 ) ) . W ha tthi s mea ns i s t hat M cC o y co u ld o n ly inv o k e the ex clus ion ary rule if h is F o u rth A m en d m en t ri g h ts w ere v io la te d . See i d. A nd underthe ci r cumst ance s her e, w e agr ee w i th the tr i al j udge that M cC o y h ad n o F o u rth A m en d m en t r igh t t o p re v e n t a se arc h o r seizu re o f his g ir lf ri en d ’s m o th e r’ s a p a rt m e n t.

A
. N o Legi t i m at e Expectat i on of P r i vacy ¶21. A s r ece nt l y s um m ed up by the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our t , “[ t ] he Four th A m endment o f th e U .S . C o n stitu tio n a n d A rticle 3 , S e c tio n 2 3 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n p ro tec t[]
o c c u p a n ts of a hom e f r om w arr ant l es s and noncons ens ual entry by pol i ce. ” C o o p e r v . S ta te , 14 5 So . 3d 11 64 , 11 74 ( ¶3 3) ( M i s s . 20 14 ) ( c i t i ng Mi nnes ota v. O l s on , 495 U . S. 91, 95 (1 9 9 0 ); P ayton v. N

ew Y ork , 445 U . S. 573, 589- 90 ( 1980) ) . “ [ T ] o cl ai m pr ot ect i on undert he Four th A m endment , a def endantm us thave a ‘ l egi t i m at e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy i n t he i nvaded pl ace [ . ] ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng O l

s on , 4 9 5 U .S . at 9 5 ). F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t p ro tec tio n is

### Ondirect ex aminatio n, C hante testified: 4 

### Q: When [ theofficers] as ked you, Does [Mc Coy] st ay at t he r es ide nce withyo u, an d d oes h e hav e cloth es in th ere, yo u an sweredwh at? A: I answe re d he ha s s omecl othe s ther e. Q: Okay. What

did you answe r wi th res pec t t o him st aying the re ? A: He d

oes n ot sta

y there . And on cross -e xam inati on, s he f urther said: Q: [A] m I under st anding you ri ght, i t’ s your t es timony t hat EddieMcCoy did not re si de ther e? A: He d oes n ot. He did n ot sta y there . Q: He di dn’t

st ay ther e; he di dn’t

re ce ivemailthe re ? 8 “typi cal l y r es tr i ct ed t o thos e w ho r ent , ow n, orotherw i s e r es i de i n the dw el l i ng. ” I d. M cC oy a rg u e s h e fa lls in to th e “ o th e rw ise re sid e ” c a teg o ry , a lleg in g h e o fte n sta y e d o v e rn ig h t w ith h is g ir lf ri e n d , C h a n te , in h e r m o th e r’ s a p a rt m e n t. See O l s on , 495 U . S. at95 ( hol di ng thatan “overni ghtgues t ” has a reasonabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy i n hi s hos t ’ s hom e) . B utthe e v id e n c e h e o ff

e re d a t th e s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g c o n tr a d ic ts th is c la im . ¶ 2 2 . O n a p p e a l, M c C o y sh ifts g e a rs. H e n o w re lies o n th e o ffic e r’s tes tim o n y th a t C h a n te t ol d hi m thatM cC oy had bee n l i vi ng i n the apa r t m entf orseve r al m onths . B utw hen M cC oy c a lled C h a n te to th e w itn e ss sta n d , sh e d e n ied s a y in g th is. I n ste a d , w h e n q u e stio n e d b y b o th M cC oy’ s couns el and the St at e, s he cons i s t ent l y m ai nt ai ned M cC oy d idn o t s t ay i n t he a p a rtm e n t. 4

### A: He d id n ot receiv e mail there. T heyaskedthat same questio n. I told the m no. Q: Ok ay . D idn’t receiv e mail there. S o w ou ld h e hav e the rig ht to tell peopl e that

the y coul dn’t

com e in, e xclude other peopl e f rom the pre mi se s? A: He don’ t bethe relik e that to eve n have to answe r a question lik e t hat . (Emp hasis ad ded ). 9 ¶23. M cC oy al s o cal l ed hi s gr andmot her , w hos e br i ef t es t i mony sol el y cons i s t ed of the f act that M cC o y li v ed w ith h er w h en h e w as arrested . G ran ted, the g ran d m o ther d id later test if y attr i al thatM cC oy s t ayed w i th C hant e “e ver [ y] now and then. ” B utthi s t es t i m ony came at th e e n d o f t h e tr ia l, af

t erthe evi dence f

ound i n the apa r t m enthad al r eady been a dm i t t ed by the j udge. Fur ther , thi s t es t i m ony di d notes t abl i s h M cC oy w as s t ayi ng w i th C hant e w hen th e o ff ic e rs k n o c k e d o n h e r d o o r. ¶ 2 4 . M c C o y ’s ap p e llate c o u n se l a sk s u s to a ss u m e M c C o y h a d b e e n sta y in g o v e rn ig h t in the apa r t m entbeca us e he w as da t i ng Chant e. B uti tw as M cC oy’ s bur den t o es t abl i s h he had a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h t in v a d e d b y th e s e a rc h o f t h e a p a rt m e n t. R a ka s v . Ill in o is , 439 U . S. 128, 13 0 n. 1 ( 1978) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A nd dur i ng the s uppr es s i on hear i ng, i ns t ead o f try in g to e sta b lish h is le g iti m a te e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y in th e a p a rtm e n t, M c C o y tried to prove the op po si t e— that he w as notan occ upant . T hi s s tr at egy of di s t anci ng hi m s el f

f r om the apa r t m entw as no doubtt o bol s t erhi s def ens e thathe had no know l edge orcontr ol over th e c o c a in e a n d c o n tr a b a n d fo u n d th e re . ¶25. B eca us e M cC oy f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h he had a l egi t i m at e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy i n t he

### 10

apart m ent, his argum ent that the judge w rongly adm i t t ed the evidence foun d ther e al so fai l s.

B . N o W ar r antR equi r ed U

nderthe C i r cum s tances ¶26. B uteven i f

w e di d as s um e M cC oy ha d be en s t ayi ng overni ghtw i th C hant e dur i ng the t i m e per i od of

the s ear ch, hi s Four th A m endmenta r gum ents t i l l f al t er s . T he pr es um pt i on that a wa rr a n t l e s s e n tr y i n t o a h o me t o c o n d u c ta s e a r c h o rma k e a n a rr e s ti s u n r e a s o n a b l e h a s t wo n o ta b le e x c e p tio n s — e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d c o n s e n t. See Stegald v. U ni t ed Stat es , 451 U . S. 204, 211- 12 ( 1981) ( ci t i ng P ayton , 4 4 5 U .S . 5 7 3 ; Johns on v . U nit ed S t at es , 33 3 U. S. 1 0 , 1 3 -1 5 (1 9 4 8 )) . A n d h e re w e h a v e b o th .

1. E xi gent C i r cum s tances ¶2 7 . “It i s w ell estab li sh ed that ‘ex igen t ci rcu m stan ce s, ’ i ncl udi ng the need t o pr eve ntthe des tr uct i on of

evi dence , perm i tpol i ce of f i cer s t o conduct an ot herw i s e perm i s s i bl e s ear ch w i thoutfi r s tobt ai ni ng a w arr ant . ” K i ng , 131 S. C t . at1854- 54 ( emphasi s added) . So l ong as “the pol i ce di d notcr eat e the exi gency by e ngagi ng orthr eat eni ng t o engage i n conduct thatvi ol at es the Four th A m endment , w arr ant l es s entry t o pr eventthe des truct i on of evi dence i s r eas onabl e and thus al l ow ed. ” I d. a t 1 8 5 8 . ¶28. C i t i ng K i ng , M cC oy ’s ap pell at e law yer argues the of f i cer s coul d notr el y on the exi gent - ci r cumst ance s doctr i ne bec aus e they had a l r eady vi ol at ed the Four th A m endment w hen the exi gency a r os e by bul l yi ng thei r w ay i nt o the apa r t m ent . B utw e s ee no pol i cecr eat ed exi gency. C hant e t es t i f i ed s he vol unt ar i l y opened the door . She s ai d s he di d s o even tho u g h sh e c o u ld n o t see thro u g h the p ee p h o le w h o w as o n the o ther side an d the o n ly w o rd s he hea r d f

r om the off

i cer s w as “H att i es bur g. ” Though she w as s urpr i s ed t o f i nd pol i ce

### In his pro se brief, McC oycharacterize s his remo val fro m the b athro om as anarrest, 5 

### wh ich h e claims was illeg al becau se the o fficers hadyet to fin d the evid ence again st him in the apartment. But at this p oint McC oywas merelybein g d etained , basedonthe o fficers’ reason abl e s uspi ci on that hehad be en de al ing dr ugs, for me d by thetip and Mc Coy’s beh avio r whenhe saw the officers. See Sing letary v. State , 318 So. 2d 873, 876 ( Mis s. 1975) (“ho ld[in g] that giv en reason able circumstan ces an officer maystop anddetaina perso n to re solve an am

biguoussi tuati on without h aving suff ic ie nt knowl edgeto j ustif y an arr es t” ). Whil e McCoy wa s de taine d, the of fi ce rs gained c onse nt t o se arch the a partm ent and f ound the dru gs M c Co y wa s tryingt o de s tr oy , a l on g wi th theo the r inc ri m i nat i ngi t e m s in the apartment. At th is po int, th e o ff ic er s thenhadpro bab le cause to arrest McC oy . Seeid. (hol ding t hat “[ a] n arrest maybe m adeonly whe n theoff ic er has proba

bleca use ”) . And bas ed on this ar

re st , they we reper

mi tt ed to se arch McCoy’ s pocke ts , wher e the y found the cash. See W

illiam s v. Sta te , 763 So. 2d 202, 204 (¶8) (Mi ss . Ct . App. 2000) ( ci ting United Sta tesv. Robins on , 41 4 U .S. 2 18 , 23 5 (1 97 3)) (“T here is n o v iolatio n o f the F ourth 11 off i cers atthe d oo r, she adm i t t ed she “ l etthem in” an d vo l un t ari l y answ ered theirqu est i on s. ¶2 9 . W h en M cC o y w alke d in o n the irinterv iew , instea d o f refu sing to sp ea k to the o ffi ce rs o r a s k in g th e m to le a v e , h e ra n to th e b a th ro o m a n d tr ie d to s la m th e d o o r. See i d. ( “O ccupa nt s w ho choos e nott o s t and on thei rc ons t i tut i onal r i ght s buti ns t ead e l ectt o att empt t o des tr oy e vi dence ha ve onl y themsel ves t o bl ame f orthe w arr ant l es s exi gent - ci r cumst ance s s ear ch thatmay ens ue. ”) . T he of f i cer s had gone t o the apa r t m entt o f ol l ow up on a t i p that M cC oy w as s el l i ng drugs outof the apa r t m ent . S o i tw as r eas onabl e f orthem t o bel i eve M c C o y h a d ru n to th e b a th ro o m to d e s tr o y e v id e n c e . S e e id
. at1857 (“D es truct i on of e v id e n c e iss u e s p ro b a b ly o c c u r m o st fre q u e n tly in d ru g c a se s b e c a u se d ru g s m a y b e e a sily des tr oyed by f

l us hi ng them dow n a t oi l etorr i ns i ng them dow n a dr ai n. ”) . T hus , w e f i nd t he exi gentci r cumst ance s j us t i f i ed the of f i cer s t o ent erthe apa r t m entt o s t op M cC oy. A nd once i n t he bathr oom , t he of

f i cer s w er e f

ur therj us t i f

i ed t o det ai n M cC oy and es corthi m out s i de o f th e a p a rtm e n t. 5

### Amen dment wh en a p erson , placedun der law ful arrest, is subjectedto a fu ll se ar chof h is

perso n.”). 12

2
. C o n se n t ¶3 0. T hi s b r i ng s u s t o the p oi nti n the s e qu e nc e o f e ve nt s when the ac tual s ear ch— t he sea rch M cC o y clai m s w as u n law ful— o cc u rred . A n d w h at th e rec o rd sh o w s i s th at th is s ear ch w as onl y con du ct ed after the of f i cer s obt ai ned w r i t t en cons entf r om C ynthi a, the apart m ent ’ s l eas ehol der . So t he “f rui t ” w as notborne of

a “poi s onous tr ee” butr atherf r om a leg a l se a rc h o f th e a p a rtm e n t. S e e G ra v e s v . S ta te , 708 So. 2d 858, 863 ( ¶23) ( M i s s . 1997) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ) (“ A v o lu n tar y c o n se n t to a se a rc h elim in a tes an o ffic e r’s n e e d to o b tain a s e a rc h w a rr a n t.” ). ¶3 1 . In P o w e ll , th is c o u rt fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t h a d a leg iti m a te e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y in hi s gi r l f r i end’ s car . T hi s w as becaus e he had per m i s s i on t o dri ve t he ca rw heneve rhe w ant ed and coul d excl ude anyone f r om the ca rexce pthi s gi r l f r i end and he rf

ather , the t i t l e hol der o f t h e v e h ic le . P o w e ll , 8 2 4 S o . 2 d at 66 4 -65 (¶1 5 ). B u t w e sti ll d ec ided the d efe n d an t’ s Four th A m endmentr i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed w hen of f i cer s s ear ched the vehi cl e. T her e w as no cons t i tuti on al vi ol at i on beca us e “the St at e pr es ent ed uncont es t ed evi dence thatt he [g ir lf ri e n d , th e ] p e rs o n g iv e n p o s s e s s io n b y th e la w fu l o w n e r[ ,] h a d c o n s e n te d to th e s e a rc h .” I d. at665 (¶16 ), 6 67 (¶¶27- 28) . W e f i nd the s ame t o be true her e. E ven i f M cC oy had a l egi t i m at e expec t at i on of pr i vacy i n t he apart m ent , he fa i l ed i n hi s bur den t o s how the s ear ch of the apa r t m entvi ol at ed hi s Fou rth A m endmentr i ght s beca us e the St at e of f er ed uncont es t ed

### In his p r o s e bri e f , Mc Co y c ha l l e ng e s thel e gi t i m a c y o f Cynthi a ’ s c on s e nt . He 6 

### al le ges shewas not c ompe te nt t o cons ent bec aus e shewas unde r the influenc e of pre sc ripti on drugs at thetime . But

thi s argum ent

tot al ly rel ie s on doc ume nts that arenot part of the recordandthu s outside th e sco pe o f our con sideratio n. See K eller v. Sta te , 138 So. 3d 817, 87 4 (¶16 8) (Miss . 2014) (c iting Ta nn er v. Sta te , 764 So. 2d 385, 402 (¶47) (Mi ss . 2000) ). What there cord shows is that Cynthi a te stif ie d at thesuppre ss ion hearing that her c onse nt had be en “ fr ee ly given. ” 13 e v id e n c e th e a p a rt m e n t’ s le s s e e h a d c o n s e n te d to th e s e a rc h .

6 ¶ 3 2 . T h u s , w e fi n d n o e rr o r i n th e d e n ia l o f M c C o y ’s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . I I . Moti on f

orD ir ected V

er di ct ¶ 3 3 . N o rd o w e f

in d e r r o ri n t h e d e n ia l o f M c C o y ’s m o tio n fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t. A m o tio n fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t c h a lle n g e s th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e . B u sh v . S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( ¶16) ( M i s s . 2005) . A nd her e, contr ary t o M cC oy’ s as s ert i ons , w e f i nd t he St at e’ s evi dence w as s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tthe cha r ged coc ai ne of f ens e. ¶34. W hen cons i der i ng the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , w e vi ew al l evi dence i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e S ta te . I d. T h is m e a n s w e “g iv e the S tate th e b e n e fit o f a ll fav o ra b le i nf er ence s r eas onabl y dr aw n f r om the evi dence. ” G ro ss ley v . S ta te , 127 S o. 3d 1143, 1147 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( ci t i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 20 So. 3d 57 , 6 4 (¶ 16) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 9 )). V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th is m a n n e r, w e a sk w h e th e r “ a n y ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld have f ound the es s ent i al e l ement s of the cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” B ush , 895 So. 2d at843 ( ¶16) ( quot i ng J a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U . S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 (19 7 9 )). ¶35. T he es s ent i al el ement M cC oy cl ai m s i s m i s s i ng w as hi s pos s es s i on of the drugs and otherdi s tr i bu t i on- r el at ed i t ems f ound i n the apa rt m ent . H e does notatt ack the s uf f i ci ency

### As the Mi ss is sippi s upre mecourt s ai d in Dix on : 7 

### In pr evi ous de ci si ons, thi s Cour t ha s a ff ir me d a conviction ba se d on cons tr uctiveposs es si on when: (1) Thede fe ndant owne d the pre mi se s whe re thedrugs wer e f

ound and f

ai le d to rebut

the pre sum

pti on that hewas in c ontrol of s uc h pre m i s e s and

thes ub s t anc e s w i thin; or ( 2) thede f

e nd ant di d n ot own thepre mi se s but

was suf fi ci ently tie d to thedrugs found ther e by ( a) exe rting controlove r theprem is es whe n heknew or shoul d haveknown of the pr es enc e of th e sub stance o r (b) p lacing h im se lf in th e midst o f items implicatin g h is parti cipation in theproc es sing of the s ubst anc e. 14 of the St at e’ s evi dence of hi s i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne. ¶36. T he St at e’ s t heory w as t hatM cC oy cons truct i vel y pos s es s ed the coc ai ne and baggi es fou n d in the b athro o m , as w ell as th e sc a les , b ra ss k n u ck les, an d g u n fou n d in C h an te’s bedr oom . “Pos s es s i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance m ay be a ctual orcons truct i ve. ” Knightv. S ta te , 72 So. 3d 1056, 1063 ( ¶26) ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng D ixo n v. S ta te , 953 So. 2d 1108, 1112 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . 2007) ) . “C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on m ay be e s t abl i s hed w her e the evi dence , c o n sid e re d u n d e r th e to ta lity o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, sh o w s th a t th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g ly exerci s ed contr ol overt he contr aband. ” I d. “The def

endant ’ s pr oxi m i ty t o the drugs i s a f act ori n es t abl i s hi ng cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, bu titis notdet erm i nat i ve. ” Id
. “O ther i ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cumst ance s m us tbe pr es entt o es t abl i s h cons truct i ve pos s es s i on. ” I d. ¶ 3 7 . M c Co y c l a i ms th a tt h e S t a t e wa s o n l y a b l e t o p r o v e h i s p r o x i m i ty t o t h e d ru g s . He i ns i s t s no “otheri ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cumst ance s ” w er e pr es entbeca us e M cC oy nei therow ned norexert ed excl us i ve contr ol overthe apa r t m ent . I ti s true thatpr ovi ng ow ner s hi p orcontr ol o v e r t h e p re m is e s a re tw o w a y s to s u p p o rt a c o n s tru c tiv e -p o s s e s s io n th e o ry . See i d. B utt hey ar e n ot t he on l y w ays . T he s upr eme cour thas al s o “af f i r m ed a c onvi ct i on bas ed on 7

### Dix on , 953 So. 2d at 1113 (¶ 11). Further , the s upre mecourt noted th is list wa s not exh austiv e. Id. at n.2 . Whil e the jur

y heard evide ncethat

the gun was re gis te re d to Chante , they a ls o heard 8 

### on e of th e officers testifyCh ante h ad b ou ght the g unfor M cCo y. 15 c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n w h e n . . . the d e fe n d a n t did n o t o w n th e p re m ise s b u t w a s s u ffic ien tly tie d to th e d ru g s fo u n d th e re b y . . . p la c in gh im se lf i n th e m id st o f i te m s imp lica tin gh is par t i ci pat i on i n the pr oces s i ng of the s ubs tance. ” D i

xon , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 3 (¶ 1 1 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). ¶3 8. H er e, w e f

i nd am pl e evi de nc e tha tM c Coy c on s truc t i ve l y p os s e s s e d the coca i ne. M cC o y w as se en w ith h is ha n d s stuffed into h is po ck ets. O n ce h e sa w the p o li ce , h e ra n h ard fo r th e b a th ro o m , sla m m in g th e d o o r to k e e p the o ffic e rs o u t. A n d w h e n th e o ffic e rs g o t to hi m , he w as s t andi ng overt he t r as h can w her e the drugs w er e f ound. T hi s w as m or e than m er e pr oxi m i ty t o the drugs . Fr om thi s i ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cumst ance , i tw as r eas onabl e f or j ur or s t o concl ude M cC oy w as tr yi ng t o hi de ordes tr oy drugs . T hi s al one show ed he ha d s u ff ic ie n t k n o w le d g e a n d c o n tr o l o v e r t h e c o c a in e to h a v e c o n s tru c tiv e ly p o s s e s s e d it. ¶39. Fur ther , hi s yel l i ng t o C hant e, “ H ol d up f oryours hi t , ” s how s hi s know l edge of drugs in the tr ash . A n d w h il e the othe r dru g -relat ed i tem s w ere fou n d i n an o ther roo m , they w ere n e a r w h e re M cC o y ha d st o red som e o f his cloth es, w h ich c o u ld l ea d a reaso n ab le j u ro r to concl ude he w as al so s t or i ng t he s cal es , br as s knuckl es , and gun ther e. See H em phi l lv. 8 S ta te , 566 So. 2d 207, 209 ( M i s s . 1990) ( guns and s cal es a r e “t ool s of the drug tr ade” and g e n e ra lly re lev a n t in d ru g c a se s); se e a lso Ma rtin v . S ta te , 41 3 S o. 2d 73 0, 73 3-34 (M i ss.

### 16

1982) . Fur ther , M cC oy had bee n f ound i n actualp o s s e s s io n o f t h e c a s h . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Munoz , 957 F. 2d 171, 174 ( 5th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng pr oof of i nt entt o di s tr i but e the drugs m ay b e infe rred from the p rese n ce o f “large q u an ti ti es o f ca sh ”). ¶40. T hus , w e f

i nd the evi dence , w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtmostf avo rabl e t o the S t at e, s u p p o rt s M c C o y ’s c o n v ic tio n o f p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . II I. S p e e d y T ria l ¶41. I n hi s pr o s e br i ef , M cC oy a ddi t i onal l y a s s ert s hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al w as vi ol at ed. B utw e f ai l t o s ee a ny vi ol at i on, gi ven the l eng t h of the del ay and the f

actM cC oy never a s s e rt e d h is ri g h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l u n til n o w . ¶42. B oth the U ni t ed St at es and M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i ons guar ant ee the acc us ed the r i ght t o “a s peedy and publ i c tr i al . ” U . S. C ons t . amend. V I ; M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 26. “A f or m al in d ictm e n t or inf

o rm a tio n o r an arr e st— w h ich e v e r first o c c u rs— trig g e rs” th is ri g h t. Mc B rid e v . S ta te , 61 S o . 3d 13 8 , 14 2 (¶8 ) ( M iss. 20 1 1 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). H ere , M cC o y ’s M ar ch 31, 2012 arr estp re cede d hi s Sept ember20, 2012 i ndi ctm ent . So f ors peedy- tr i al purposes, the cl ock bega n runni ng on M ar ch 31, 2012. M cC oy w as tr i ed on J anuary 9, 2013— m or e than ei ght s m onths l at er . A nd “[ i ] n M i s s i s s i ppi , a del ay of m ore t han ei ght m onths i s pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al . ” I d. at( ¶7) . B utthe l ength of del ay i s onl y one of

f our fa c to rs th a t m u s t b e c o n s id e re d w h e n a s p e e d y -t ri a l v io la tio n is a lle g e d . See i d. at( ¶5) ( ci t i ng B arkerv. W

i ngo , 407 U . S. 514, 530 ( 1972) ) . T hi s f act orm us tbe consi der ed al ongs i de the r eas on f ordel ay, w hetherM cC oy as s ert ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al , and w hetherany p re ju d ic e re s u lte d fr o m th e d e la y . See i d. ( l i s t i n g th e f o u r - f a c t o rt e s tf

r o m B arker , 40 7 U. S.

### 17

a t 5 3 0 ). ¶ 4 3 . H e re , th e len g th o f d e lay , th o u g h p re s u m p tiv e ly p re ju d icia l, is ju st b a re ly so — o n ly n in e d a y s o v e r t h e p re s u m p tiv e th re s h o ld . ¶44. T he r ecor d i s s i l enton the r eas on fort he del ay of ei ghtm onths and ni ne days

— exce pt i tdoes s how M cC oy, w ho ha d be en outon bai l s i nce hi s M ar ch arr es t , w as i ndi ct ed by the gr and j ury i n Sept ember , arr ai gned a mont h l at eri n O ct ober , and tr i ed thr ee mont hs l at ert he fo llo w in g J a n u a ry . ¶ 4 5 . W hy t her e i s no e xp l a na t i on f ort he de l a y t i e s i nt o the t hi r d f a c t or— the as s e r t i on of r i ght . T he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas s ai d t hat , w hi l e “[ a] n acc us ed has no duty t o br i ng h im s e lf to tr ia l[,] . . . h e d o e s h a v e s o m e r e s p o n s ib ility to a s s e rt h is ri g h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l.” I d. a t 1 4 4 (¶ 2 0 ) (in ter n a l citatio n s o m itt e d ). A n d the U n ited S tate s “ S u p re m e C o u rt in B arker em p h asize d ‘th at fail u re to a ssert th e righ t t o a sp ee d y tr ial w il l m ak e itd if fi cu ltfor a def end ant t o prove t hathe w as deni ed a s peedy tr i al . ’ ” McBri de , 61 So. 3d at144 ( ¶20) ( quot i ng B arker , 40 7 U . S . at53 2). D uri ng the ei gh tm on ths and nine day s bet w een h i s arres t and tr i al , M cC oy neveras s ert ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al . N ordi d he s eek di s m i s s al f r om the tr i al courtbas ed on the vi ol at i on of hi s spee dy- tr i al ri ght s , w hi ch w oul d have pr om pt ed the tr i al court ’ s ow n B arker a n a ly sis an d ev id e n tiary h e a rin g . M c C o y cla im s h e v e rb a lly asse rt ed h is r igh t to a sp ee d y tri al as soo n as he w as a rrested o n M arc h 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 . B u t th ere is s im p ly n o th in g in th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt th is . ¶ 4 6 . F in a lly , M c C o y h a s n o t s h o w n p re ju d ice , th o u g h h e h a s a lleg e d it— c laim in g th a t a w i tnes s w i th t he pot ent i al t o exoner at e hi m di ed dur i ng t he del ay. M cC oy cl ai m s thi s m an

### 18

v isi ted th e a p artm en t r igh t befo re the p o li ce sh o w ed u p that d ay an d “v ery w ell m ay h av e left the al l eged i t em(s ) ther e i n the w as t e bas ketof the bathr oom /r es tr oom . ” B utthi s uni dent i f i ed m an’ s exi s t ence — l etal one hi s death— i s i n no w ay ver i f i ed f r om the r ecor d. T hus , M cC oy has f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h hi s def ens e w as ham per ed by t he del ay. A nd as M cC oy w as f r ee on b a il p e n d in g h is tr ia l, w e fi n d n o a c tu a l p re ju d ic e b y th e d e la y . ¶4 7. A ccor di ng t o the s upr eme cour t , “w her e t he del ay i s nei t heri nt ent i onal nor egr egi ous l y pr otr act ed, a nd ther e i s an abs ence of actual pr ej udi ce t o the def ens e, the bal ance i s s truck i n f

avorof r ej ect i ng a s peedy tr i al cl ai m . ” J o h n so n v . S ta te , 68 S o. 3d 1239, 1246 (¶22) (M i s s . 2011) ( quot i ng S tev e n s v . S ta te , 80 8 S o. 2d 90 8, 91 8 (¶29 ) ( M i ss. 20 02 )). B eca us e s uch i s the ca s e her e, w e r ej ectM cC oy’ s cl ai m thathi s con vict i on s houl d be re v e rs e d b a s e d o n a v io la tio n o f h is ri g h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l. I V . I nef f ecti ve Ass is tance of

Counsel ¶48. L as t l y, M cC oy ha s r ai s ed i n hi s pr o s e bri ef a cl ai m of i neff ect i ve ass i s t ance of couns el , al l egi ng var i ous def i ci enci es by hi s tr i al co un sel . W hen a c l ai m of i nef f ect i ve a s s i s t a n c e i s r a i s e d o n d i r e c ta p p e a l , w e w i l l o n l y c o n s i d e ri t s m e r i t s u n d e rt wo ci r cumst ance s — ( 1) w her e the part i es have s t i pul at ed the r ecor d i s adequa t e f orus t o m ake an i ndepende ntf

i ndi ng or( 2) w her e “the r ecor d af f i r m at i vel y s how s i nef

f ect i venes s of cons t i tut i onal di m ens i ons [ . ] ” G ill v . S ta te , 126 So. 3d 128, 133- 34 (¶27 ) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng C o len b u rgv . S ta te , 73 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 1 (¶5 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 )). In otherw or ds , the r ecor d m us ts how couns el ’ s per f or m ance w as s o cons t i tut i onal l y def i ci ent a n d p re ju d ic ia l th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e d e c la re d a m is tr ia l s u a s p o n te . See i d. at134

### 19

( ¶27) ( ci t i ng C olenburg , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 0 2 (¶ 8 )) . ¶4 9 . H ere , the p arti es h av e n o t st ipu lat ed the rec o rd is ad eq u ate for u s to a d d ress M cC o y ’s cl ai m s . N orc an w e s ee f r om the r ecor d a ny r eas on the tr i al j udge s houl d have be en al er t ed t o any def

i ci enci es i n couns el ’ s per f or m ance . T her ef

or e, w e dec l i ne t o addr es s the i s s ue of tr i al couns el ’ s per f

or m ance on di r ecta ppeal . W e di s m i s s M cC oy’ s cl ai m w i thoutpr ej udi ce, l eavi ng ope n the pos s i bi l i ty t o make thes e s ame as s ert i ons i n a mot i on f or post -convi ct i on re lie f. See i d. a t ( ¶ 3 0 ). ¶ 5 0 . THE J UDGM EN T OF THE F ORRE S T C OUNT Y CI RCUI T C OURT OF CO NVI CTI ON OF POS S ES S I ON OF A CO NTRO LLED S UBS TANCE W I TH I NT E NT T O D I S T RI B UT E AND S E NT E NC E AS A H AB I T UA L OF F E ND E R O F L I F E I N T HE CU S T ODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECT I ON S W I THO UT THE POSS I BI LI TY OF PARO LE OR EAR LY RELEAS E I S AFFI RM ED. ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO F ORRE S T C OUNT Y. LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE, ROBE RT S , CARL TON A ND FAI R, J J . , CO NCU R. I RVI NG , P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N THE R ES ULT W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.