Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Garantine
Citations: 527 So. 2d 1144; 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1614; 1988 WL 66218Docket: No. 87 KA 1716
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 21, 1988; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Bobby L. Garantine was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and cultivation of marijuana. He pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search conducted under a warrant, which he claimed was based on an inadequate description of the premises. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, after which Garantine changed his plea to guilty on both counts while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He received concurrent five-year sentences, which were suspended in favor of three years of supervised probation. The search warrant was issued based on a tip from a confidential informant and executed on November 4, 1986, at Garantine's trailer. The affidavit supporting the warrant indicated that Sergeant Schiro had confirmed the trailer's location and observed a mailbox with the name 'Garantine.' During the suppression hearing, the trial judge acknowledged a discrepancy in mailing addresses but determined that the description of the premises was sufficiently detailed to prevent confusion. The judge concluded that the search complied with constitutional requirements regarding the specificity of search warrants. The burden of proof lay with Garantine to demonstrate any confusion regarding the address, which he failed to do, as no other similar addresses were found in the vicinity. The officer who observed the defendant's residence was directly involved in executing the search warrant, minimizing the risk of searching the wrong location. Citing relevant case law (State v. Scramuzza and United States v. Darensbourg), the trial court found that the defendant did not demonstrate that the address, while possibly inaccurate for mailing, lacked sufficient detail to identify the location to be searched. Consequently, the assignment of error was deemed meritless. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, noting that the guilty plea to attempted cultivation of marijuana was valid, as it did not require amending the original bill of information. Attempted cultivation of marijuana is considered a lesser included offense of the charged crime, thus the trial court had jurisdiction to accept the plea.