State of North Carolina vs. Frankie Eugene Shipman (COA25-682), is a case out of Orange County that looks at the notice requirements for someone who is subject to a domestic violence protection order (DVPO). Additionally, the North Carolina Court of Appeals also looks at the application of the felony stalking statute.
Mr. Shipman had a child with Ms. Gomez. The child was born in October of 2016. Mr. Shipman and Ms. Gomez never lived together, but Mr. Shipman did visit their child once or twice a week for the first six years of the child’s life. Mr. Shipman had not visited the child for months before leaving gifts for her on Ms. Gomez’s apartment doorstep in June of 2022. Afterward, Ms. Gomez noticed all four tires of her boyfriend’s car had been slashed. The car had been parked near Ms. Gomez’s apartment. Ms. Gomez applied for a DVPO against Mr. Shipman because she believed that he was responsible for slashing her boyfriend’s tires. She was granted a temporary DVPO in June of 2022 with the full hearing in the matter scheduled for that same month.
Because of the inability to obtain service on Mr. Shipman, the hearing on the DVPO was continued several times between June and September of 2022. Mr. Shipman was finally served in August of 2022 by the Wake County Sheriff’s Office and the hearing was held in October of 2022. After the hearing, Ms. Gomez was granted a one-year DVPO which prohibited Mr. Shipman from contacting Ms. Gomez. However, Mr. Shipman continued to contact Ms. Gomez through social media, telephone calls, and text messages. Ms. Gomez ceased communication with Mr. Shipman because he became “really unstable” and “unpredictable.”
In April of 2023, Mr. Shipman texted Ms. Gomez at 3:00am stating that he would come by her place. Ms. Gomez was afraid, blocked her door with a sofa, sent a screenshot of the message to a Wake County Deputy, and “didn’t sleep that night.” Mr. Shipman continued to go to Ms. Gomez’s apartment unannounced during May of 2023, leaving items at her doorstep. On one occasion, Ms. Gomez discovered one of her tires had been slashed. Also in May of 2023, Mr. Shipman parked his vehicle behind Ms. Gomez’s vehicle while she was attempting to leave. She called the to report Mr. Shipman’s actions. Later, Mr. Shipman threatened Ms. Gomez’s boyfriend on social media.
In June of 2023, Ms. Gomez made a motion to renew her DVPO. Her motion was granted in July of 2023 and the DVPO was renewed for two years. In renewing the DVPO, the trial court found that “Defendant continues to harass and destroy [Ms. Gomez’s] property,” and she “stills needs protection.”
In October of 2023, Mr. Shipman was indicted on one count of felony stalking and fifteen counts of misdemeanor DVPO violation. Mr. Shipman was tried on these offenses in January of 2025. During the trial, Ms. Gomez testified about the repeated harassment that she experienced from Mr. Shipman and her constant feeling of fear from his behavior. The deputy from the Wake County Sheriff’s Office testified to personally serving Mr. Shipman with the temporary DVPO and the notice of hearing. An assistant clerk of court testified that the clerk’s office had mailed a copy of the one year DVPO to Mr. Shipman at the address that was on file for him. Mr. Shipman also testified at the trial. He testified that he never received a copy of the DVPO and did not know it existed. However, he did admit to sending Facebook messages to a friend about a letter sent to his mother’s house that was, ‘….talking about some domestic.” He also acknowledged that the address on file for him was his mother’s address.
At the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all evidence, Mr. Shipman moved to dismiss the charges against him due to insufficiency of the evidence. Both motions were denied and Mr. Shipman was convicted of all charges. The trial court imposed a suspended sentence and Mr. Shipman gave timely notice of appeal
On appeal, Mr. Shipman argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. His assertions are that the State did not provide substantial evidence the he had notice of the DVPO and that a reasonable person in Ms. Gomez’s circumstances would not have feared for her safety or suffered emotional distress. Mr. Shipman properly preserved his arguments for appellate review and the North Carolina Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review. In its analysis, the Court considered whether there was “more than a scintilla of evidence” that supports “each element of the charged offense, or of a lesser offense included therein,” and the “defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense.” The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
The Court found that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Mr. Shipman had notice of the existence of the DVPO. When view in the light most favorable to the State, the testimony from the Wake County Deputy, the assistant clerk of court, and Mr. Shipman’s own Facebook message demonstrated that the State met its burden of showing that Mr. Shipman had knowledge of the DVPO. Therefore, the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on this ground.
The Court went on to turn its attention to the evidence presented on the charge of felony stalking. Here the Court examined the elements of the stalking statute found in N.C.G.S. §14-277.3A(c) in the context of the evidence presented taken in the light most favorable to the State. During her testimony, Ms. Gomez stated that prior to obtaining the DVPO, Mr. Shipman made comments that “felt like…a threat”. She also stated that he “scared” her because he made threats against her with guns. She was concerned that his conduct was escalating and that he “continuously reached out to [her] through texts, phone calls[,] and different social media platforms.” When renewing her DVPO, that trial court found that Mr. Shipman continued to harass and destroy Ms. Gomez’s property and that she remained in need of protection. The appellate Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Mr. Shipman engaged in numerous instances of unwanted contact with Ms. Gomez causing her emotional distress that would have caused a reasonable person in her position to fear for their safety.
Although Mr. Shipman based his communication with Ms. Gomez on his desire to remain in contact with his daughter, the appellate Court found that none of his threatening messages or social media comments made any mention of his daughter. The Court concluded that Mr. Shipman’s numerous instances of harassment served no legal purpose and that the State had presented substantial evidence that a reasonable person in Ms. Gomez’s circumstances would have suffered emotional distress and feared for their safety. Thus, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Shipman’s motion to dismiss on this ground.
Recent Comments