State v. Davis is a recently filed North Carolina Court of Appeals decision out of Vance County. In this case, the Court analyzes two issues that come up often in our criminal courts. One is the voluntariness of a confession and the other is the treatment of out of state criminal convictions in the determination of a defendant’s prior record level when it comes time for sentencing. These issues arose in Mr. Davis’s motion for appropriate relief (MAR) and in his motion to suppress. Both of these issues were ultimately brought up before the Court of Appeals.
In September of 2013, Mr. Davis and other individuals were staying at Mr. Davis’s grandmother’s house. Mr. Davis and one of those individuals took a one or two day trip to New Jersey. When they returned to his grandmother’s, Mr. Davis was carrying a duffel bag. A lady staying in the home noticed the duffel bag and a white powdery substance on a counter. When the lady tried to leave the home, Mr. Davis stuck her several times. She eventually managed to leave and called 911.
Officers with the Henderson Police Department later responded to the home, Mr. Davis’s uncle, who also lived in the home, allowed the officers to enter. While there, the officers found evidence of heroin, drug paraphernalia, at two firearms one with the serial numbers scratched off. While the investigation was occurring, an anonymous caller reported the location of Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis was located and arrested shortly after. With Mr. Davis in custody, the officers drove back to the home where Mr. Davis was able to observe his grandmother receiving treatment from EMS because she had suffered a “medical event.”
Mr. Davis was taken to the Henderson Police Department where he was interviewed. Mr. Davis claimed possession of everything that the officers found in the home. In writing an upon the request of one of the questioning sergeants, Mr. Davis specifically listed taking responsibility for the drug paraphernalia, 50 grams of heroin, and the two firearms.
Mr. Davis was indicted on trafficking opium or heroin, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number. Mr. Davis enter a not guilty plea to all charges and his case eventually went to trial. During his trial, Mr. Davis moved to suppress his written statement. That motion was denied. Mr. Davis was convicted of all charges. At sentencing, the State argued that Mr. Davis’s prior robbery conviction out of New Jersey should be considered as part of his prior record level for sentencing purposes. The trial court agreed. Several post-conviction filings were made, amended, and appealed. Ultimately this case made it before the North Carolina Court of Appeals with the issues to be reviewed being the trial court’s refusal to suppress the written statement and the trial court’s determination that the New Jersey robbery offense was substantially similar to North Carolina’s robbery offense for the purpose of determining Mr. Davis’s prior record level.
Mr. Davis argued that his confession was not given voluntarily and therefore it was inadmissible. He maintained that the officers coerced him into the confession by threatening to arrest his grandmother and uncle if he did not take responsibility for the items that were found in the home. However, the court did not deem this to be coercion as the officer did have a legal right to arrest the grandmother and uncle since both of them had possession of the premises and they were both present upon the arrival of the officers. Instead, the Court applied a “totality of the circumstances’ analysis in determining the voluntariness of the confession. The Court relied heavily on the testimony of a sergeant. The sergeant testified that during the questioning, Mr. Davis was calm and laid back. He also testified that Miranda Warnings were administered before the confession and that Mr. Davis had signed a written waiver before confessing. During the suppression hearing, Mr. Davis acknowledged that the signature on the waiver was his.
The basis for Mr. Davis’s MAR appeal that was before the Court of Appeals was the inadmissibility of his confession. The Court found that the trial court’s ruling on this issue was based on findings of fact that were supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, the trial court’s conclusions of law were supported by sufficient findings of fact. Therefore, the MAR was properly denied.
The court concludes its review of Mr. Davis’s appellate issues by examining the trial court's application of a New Jersey robbery conviction to determine Mr. Davis’s prior record level. This Is an issue that comes up more frequently in North Carolina state courts as we become a more transient and mobile society. In comparing the New Jersey and North Carolina statutes on robbery for the purpose of determining Mr. Davis’s prior record level, the Court carefully looked at the exact wording of each statute and the elements of the crimes as statutorily outlined in the respective jurisdictions. The legal requirement for permitting use of an out of state conviction is that the out of state offense needs to be substantially similar to the In state one. The offenses do not have to match precisely. Substantial similarity between the two statutes must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. After comparing the statutes on robbery from New Jersey and North Carolina that were presented, the Court of Appeals concluded that even though the two statutes did not precisely match, there were “obviously essential pertinent parallels” to make the statutes substantially similar for the purpose of sentencing.
Given the procedural history of this case, it would not be at all surprising if a petition for discretionary review were filed in the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking to address these matters further. Our office will be sure to follow-up with an further appellate actions that take place with respect to this case.
Recent Comments