Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Idaho v. Sandee Denise Cargile

January 14, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SANDEE DENISE CARGILE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson; Hon. Timothy S. Hansen, District Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lansing, Judge

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 328

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Orders denying suppression motion and revoking probation, affirmed. Judgment of conviction and sentence for escape, affirmed.

This is a consolidated appeal. In Docket No. 38855, Sandee Denise Cargile entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. In Docket No. 38867, Cargile appeals from the district court's order revoking probation and executing the sentence on a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine, contending that the court should have sua sponte reduced her sentence on revocation. In Docket No. 38868, Cargile pleaded guilty to escape, and she asserts that the court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm.

I.

BACKGROUND

In Docket No. 38855, Cargile challenges the denial of her motion to suppress drug evidence found in her vehicle during a traffic stop. At the suppression hearing, the sole witness was Ada County Sheriff Deputy Vogt. In its written order denying the motion, the district court made the following findings. Around 7:30 p.m. on June 23, 2011, Vogt, an experienced narcotics detective, was patrolling the area of Five Mile and Overland in Boise, Idaho when he observed defendant Sandee Cargile fail to use her turn signal. Vogt then followed her for about two miles, during which he contacted Deputy Piccola, a canine handler who is part of his "Action team," for assistance, as a matter of routine and also because he was becoming suspicious of Cargile's behavior, primarily because of the way she looked at him and the way she did not look at him. After about two miles and positioned directly behind Cargile, Vogt activated his red and blue emergency lights. He noticed that Cargile looked out of the corner of her eye in the driver's side mirror at him. Cargile did not immediately pull over but continued to drive for about a quarter of a mile, and it appeared to Vogt that Cargile was acting as though she did not see him. He saw a little head movement, but not a full look into the mirror. It looked like Cargile was looking out of the corner of her eye and not yielding. After a quarter of a mile, Vogt activated his siren a couple of times to get Cargile's attention. She then looked directly into the rearview mirror at the officer. Instead of pulling over to the right-hand side of the road, she drove into the center turn lane. Vogt thought that was odd because, in his numerous traffic stops, a person will pull over to the far right-hand lane. She then turned left across traffic and pulled into a large parking lot of a business. Instead of stopping, she continued to drive very slowly to the rear of the parking lot behind some buildings. Vogt found all this driving and parking pattern to be unusual. Additionally he was becoming concerned about his safety because of the stop behind buildings and out of public view.

After Cargile stopped, Vogt approached her truck, spoke to her and obtained her driver's license and information. He returned to his vehicle to run checks and found that Cargile had some past convictions for drug offenses. Within about five minutes of the initial stop of Cargile's vehicle, Deputy Piccola arrived with the canine. Vogt brought Piccola up to speed. The intent was that while Piccola ran the canine around the truck, Vogt would finish dealing with the traffic violation. Within eight minutes of the stop, Vogt returned to Cargile to tell her about her turn signal and the reason for the stop. He asked her to step out of the truck. She refused, saying it was her right to stay in the vehicle. He asked several times and she said "no." He then told her he had a drug dog present, that she needed to step out of the truck so he could safely run the dog, and that if she refused she would be arrested for obstructing. She again said "no." After several refusals by Cargile of Vogt's directive to exit the vehicle, Vogt told Cargile she was under arrest. She then quickly leaned over and locked the driver's door. The window was still open so Vogt reached through the open window and controlled Cargile's arms behind her back while Piccola unlocked the passenger door and reached for Cargile, moving her personal items out of the way and putting some on the ground in the process. After Cargile was removed and arrested, the canine alerted to items on the ground and in the vehicle.

A subsequent search of Cargile's belongings and truck resulted in the discovery of, among other things, 20.3 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, clear plastic baggies, a "pay/owe" ledger sheet, used syringes, a glass methamphetamine pipe with burnt residue and $2,030 in cash. Cargile was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A); possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A(1); and resisting and obstructing an officer, I.C. § 18-705.

Cargile filed a motion asserting that the evidence found in her vehicle and belongings must be suppressed because Deputy Vogt unlawfully extended the duration of her detention on the traffic violation to allow time for Deputy Piccola and his drug detection dog to arrive. After the district court denied the suppression motion, Cargile entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The district court imposed a unified sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment with four years determinate. Cargile appeals from the judgment of conviction.

Before Cargile was arrested and charged in Docket No. 38855, she was on probation in Docket No. 38867 for a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Based upon the offenses charged in Docket No. 38855, along with other violations, the State moved for revocation of Cargile's probation and execution of the underlying sentence. Cargile admitted the violations. The district court revoked probation and executed the underlying sentence of five years, with one year fixed. On appeal, Cargile contends that the district court should have sua sponte reduced her sentence on revocation of probation.

After Cargile pleaded guilty to the possession with intent to deliver charge and admitted the probation violations in the above cases, but before the respective sentencing and probation disposition hearings, Cargile filed motions in both cases requesting an eight-hour furlough from jail to attend to personal matters in Ada County. The district courts granted the motions. Cargile did not return to the jail as scheduled but instead fled. Both courts issued arrest warrants, and Cargile was apprehended five months later in Kootenai County and brought back to Ada County. For her actions, she was charged in Docket No. 38868 with escape, I.C. ยง 18-2505. She pleaded guilty, and the district court imposed a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.