Opinion
No. ED 107251
11-19-2019
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ricky O. BOLDEN, Appellant.
FOR APPELLANT, David A. Bruns, 225 South Meramec, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63105. FOR RESPONDENT, Evan M. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT, David A. Bruns, 225 South Meramec, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
FOR RESPONDENT, Evan M. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J. and Lisa P. Page, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Ricky Bolden ("Defendant") claims on appeal officers violated his due process rights by entering a residence, arresting him, and searching the residence without an arrest or search warrant. A witness at the scene of a shooting identified Defendant as the shooter in a homicide investigation during a drug transaction. Defendant was arrested in a residence approximately 30 hours after the shooting as a wanted suspect in the investigation. During the search of the residence, officers found numerous controlled substances and three weapons, one matching the description of the gun used in the shooting, in the room where Defendant was found. Following his arrest, two officers interviewed Defendant and recorded Defendant confessing to shooting the victim and to ownership of the weapons and drugs found in the residence.
At trial, Defendant moved to suppress both the evidence found during the search and the recorded interviews because the officers violated his due process rights. The trial court denied the motions to suppress and convicted Defendant of second-degree felony murder in association with distribution of a controlled substance. The court also convicted Defendant of one count of armed criminal action, three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, four counts of possession of a controlled substance, and four counts of unlawful use of a weapon.
We find the trial court’s decision to deny Defendant’s motions to suppress the evidence was not clearly erroneous because our de novo review of Defendant’s constitutional claims shows the evidence adduced at trial weighed heavily in favor of a finding of exigent circumstances during the officers' entrance, arrest of Defendant, and search at the residence. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.25(b) (2018).