Opinion
No. 106,967.
2012-10-5
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Luis GONZALEZ, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Phillip B. Journey, Judge. David L. Leon, of Wichita, for appellant. Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Phillip B. Journey, Judge.
David L. Leon, of Wichita, for appellant. Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before BRUNS, P.J., PIERRON and MARQUARDT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Luis Gonzalez appeals from his conviction for possession of cocaine, contending the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person and statements he made to police. Because Gonzalez failed to include either the transcript from the suppression hearing or any written decision from the district court, he has failed to designate an adequate record for this court to review the issue. Accordingly, we affirm.
In May 2010, Luis Gonzalez was charged in Sedgwick County with one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of K.S.A.2009 Supp. 21–36a06(a). The complaint alleged that the offense occurred on November 15, 2009. Several months thereafter, Gonzalez filed a motion to suppress statements and evidence, but that motion was subsequently withdrawn. He filed a nearly identical motion several months later.
Both motions to suppress listed a number of legal principles and authorities but were vague about the factual circumstances of the search. Apparently, Gonzalez was the driver or a passenger in a vehicle stopped by law enforcement in Wichita on November 15, 2009. At some point during the vehicle stop, Gonzalez was asked to exit the vehicle and was frisked. The officer apparently asked for and received consent from Gonzalez to conduct the pat-down search. During the search, narcotics were found on his person.
After several continuances, a hearing was held on April 26, 2011, and the motion to suppress was denied. Gonzalez waived his right to jury trial, and the evidence to the court was on stipulated facts. The court found Gonzalez guilty of the charge, and he was sentenced to 12 months with Community Corrections, with an underlying sentence of 10 months' incarceration. Gonzalez timely appealed.
On appeal, Gonzalez contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Gonzalez contends that there was insufficient reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain him or search him after the stop of the vehicle.
An appellate court reviews a district court's decision on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. Without reweighing the evidence, the appellate court reviews the district court's findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. Then, the ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed using a de novo standard. State v. Sanchez–Loredo, 294 Kan. 50, 54, 272 P.3d 34 (2012).
However, we are unable to review either the district court's factual findings or its legal conclusions because Gonzalez has failed to provide an adequate record. The record on appeal only contains—and Gonzalez' brief only cites to—his motion to suppress, which fails to present any meaningful synopsis of the circumstances surrounding the search. Gonzalez failed to properly request a transcript of the suppression hearing to establish what evidence was presented to the district court on the motion. Also, we were not provided a minute sheet or journal entry that might memorialize the court's findings of fact or conclusions of law. The record does not even contain the stipulation of facts presented at the bench trial.
The party claiming an error has the burden of designating a record that affirmatively shows prejudicial error. State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 999, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). In the absence of an adequate record, the claim of alleged error fails. State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670, 175 P.3d 840 (2008). Accordingly, Gonzalez' conviction is affirmed.
Summarily affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 60).