MCFADDEN, P. J., BRANCH and BETHEL, JJ.
MCFADDEN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
jury trial, Derrick Briscoe was convicted of possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute as a lesser included
offense of cocaine trafficking. He appeals, arguing that the
trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We
disagree because the search warrant affidavit was
corroborated by a controlled buy, the information in the
warrant affidavit provided a sufficient nexus to
Briscoe's apartment, and the information was not
impermissibly stale. Briscoe also argues that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. But he has not shown both
deficient performance and prejudice. So we affirm.
in the light most favorable to the verdict, Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560)
(1979), the evidence shows that law enforcement officers
executed a search warrant on Briscoe's apartment and
found a large bag of cocaine, more than a dozen bags of
cocaine packaged into small amounts for sale, thousands of
dollars of cash, a digital scale with cocaine residue on its
surface, packaging material, "cut material" used to
dilute the drug, and "tally sheets" used to keep
track of money owed. The officers found Briscoe in a bedroom
closet. After he was handcuffed, Briscoe asked, "Did I
sell to an undercover?" When a detective asked if the
cocaine was his, Briscoe responded affirmatively.
was charged with cocaine trafficking and obstruction of an
officer for his behavior during the execution of the search
warrant. A jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute as a lesser included offense and
not guilty of obstruction of an officer; he was sentenced on
the possession charge. Briscoe now appeals the denial of his
motion for new trial.
Motion to suppress.
argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to
suppress items seized from his apartment for three reasons:
the detective who obtained the search warrant did not
sufficiently corroborate the confidential informant's
information; the information did not provide probable cause
to search Briscoe's apartment; and the information was
stale. We disagree with all three arguments.
only information before the magistrate court judge who issued
the search warrant was the affidavit of the police detective
who sought the warrant. The detective made the following
assertions in the affidavit: The detective met with a
confidential informant whose veracity was unknown to the
detective. The informant told the detective that a black man
who goes by the name of "Briscoe" and who has short
dreadlocks was distributing cocaine from his white Ford
Explorer. The informant gave the detective Briscoe's
phone number, which the detective traced to defendant Derrick
Briscoe at a particular address in Athens. At the
detective's request, the informant arranged to purchase
cocaine from Briscoe in a Publix parking lot.
detective had another law enforcement officer conduct
surveillance of Briscoe's apartment before the scheduled
controlled buy. That officer told the detective that a black
male with short dreadlocks entered the apartment about ten
minutes before the controlled buy, exited the apartment, and
got into a white Ford Explorer. The surveillance officer
followed the white Ford Explorer to the Publix parking lot,
where the detective was waiting and watching.
detective saw the Explorer pull up. The detective saw that
the driver was a black male with short dreadlocks. The
informant purchased cocaine and identified the seller as
Briscoe. The detective watched the entire transaction and
monitored the conversation between Briscoe and the informant
via a transmitter worn by the informant.
magistrate court issued a search warrant based on the
affidavit, and law enforcement officers executed the warrant.
The confidential informant's information was
argues that the detective who obtained the search warrant did
not sufficiently corroborate the confidential informant's
description of Briscoe's physical appearance.
Specifically, Briscoe points to the fact that the detective
stated in the search warrant affidavit that he had seen a
black male with short dreadlocks in the Ford Explorer that
drove up to the controlled buy. Yet at the motion to suppress
hearing and at trial, the detective testified that he could
not see whether the black male in the Ford Explorer had
dreadlocks. In fact, Briscoe did not have dreadlocks. Briscoe
argues that the detective's false ...