from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish
of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 202684 Honorable Jeff
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Peggy J. Sullivan Counsel for
SCHUYLER MARVIN District Attorney Counsel for Appellee.
MICHAEL LAWRENCE Assistant District Attorney.
DREW, STONE, and BLEICH (Pro Tempore), JJ.
BLEICH, J. (PRO TEMPORE).
the second appeal in a matter arising from the 26th Judicial
District Court, Bossier Parish, Louisiana. The defendant,
David Jerome Manning, pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine, while reserving his right to appeal the
trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. In
State v. Manning, 50, 591 (La.App. 2 Cir. 05/18/16),
196 So.3d 626 ("Manning I"), the trial
court's ruling was affirmed. However, because the trial
court did not rule on Manning's second motion to
suppress, the matter was remanded to the trial court for a
determination of whether Manning's plea was conditioned
upon waiver of the second motion. Manning maintains his
guilty plea, but appeals the trial court's denial of his
second motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we
affirm the trial court's ruling.
precise facts of this matter are set forth in Manning
I. In summary, Manning was stopped after Louisiana State
Trooper Nathan Sharbono observed the vehicle Manning was
operating cross the white fog line on I-20 in Bossier Parish.
Manning had no driver's license to present to Trp.
Sharbono, nor registration paperwork for the vehicle which
Manning claimed his sister rented. A criminal records check
revealed that Manning and one of his two adult passengers had
extensive criminal records. Trooper Sharbono called for the
canine unit, which arrived shortly after the call. Manning
declined to consent to a search of the vehicle, and the
canine unit conducted a free air sniff around the vehicle.
The dog alerted on the vehicle, and a subsequent search
yielded a plastic bag from under the front passenger seat
containing approximately 100 different colored ecstasy pills.
was charged by bill of information with: possession of a
Schedule I controlled dangerous substance ("CDS")
(methylone), a violation of La. R.S. 40:966(C)(3); possession
of a Schedule II CDS (methamphetamine), a violation of La.
R.S. 40:967(C); and, conspiracy to distribute a CDS, a
violation of La. R.S. 40:979 and La. R.S. 14:26. He was also
charged with improper lane usage and driving under a
filed a motion to suppress, challenging the legality of the
vehicle stop and subsequent search. After a hearing, based on
the totality of the circumstances and the testimony
presented, the trial court denied the initial motion to
suppress. Thereafter, Manning filed a second motion to
suppress, challenging the legality of the search under
Rodriguez v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct.
1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015).
hearing on July 8, 2015, after some argument as to whether
Manning was entitled to a hearing on his second motion to
suppress, Manning accepted a plea offer, but no ruling was
made on the second motion. Manning pled guilty to possession
of methamphetamine, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C),
reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to
suppress, and the remaining charges were dismissed. He was
sentenced, pursuant to the plea agreement, to five years
imprisonment at hard labor.
Manning I, Manning argued that the trial court erred
in denying his motion to suppress because Tpr. Sharbono's
suspicions of other criminal activity were unfounded.
However, Manning did not distinguish between the two separate
motions to suppress. In affirming the trial court's
denial of the initial motion, this Court stated:
In stopping Manning for the traffic violation, Trp. Sharbono
had a right to conduct a routine license and registration
check and to engage in conversation with Manning and his
passengers. In the trial ...