State Carolina v. Blount

• Decision Date: 18 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. COA10–352.,COA10–352.
• Citation: 703 S.E.2d 921
• Parties: STATE of North Carolinav.Quinten Lavaughn BLOUNT, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

703 S.E.2d 921

STATE of North Carolina

v.Quinten Lavaughn BLOUNT, Defendant.

No. COA10–352.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 18, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 2 November 2009 by Judge Kenneth F. Crow in Lenoir County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 October 2010.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Jennifer M. Jones, for the State.

John T. Hall, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

HUNTER, ROBERT C., Judge.

Defendant Quinten Lavaughn Blount appeals from the judgment entered on his guilty plea to felony possession of stolen goods and felony obstruction of justice. Defendant's principal argument on appeal is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept his plea to felony obstruction of justice as the indictment is insufficient to elevate the misdemeanor charge to a felony. We conclude that the indictment is sufficient to elevate the charge and thus the trial court had jurisdiction to enter judgment on defendant's guilty plea. With respect to the trial court's restitution order, however, we conclude that it is not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Accordingly, we vacate and remand the court's restitution order.

Facts

The State's summary of the factual basis for defendant's pleas tended to establish that on 7 July 2008, Detective R.A. Pearson, Jr., with the Lenoir County Sheriff's Department, began investigating a break in at Williams' Auto Sale, in Grifton, North Carolina. Detective Pearson spoke with Garland Williams, the owner of the business, who stated that several items were missing from his shop, including a tow dolly, an impact wrench, an air compressor, a sawzall, a mower, a weed-eater, two electric drills, and three car CD players. About a month later, on 8 August 2008, Mr. Williams spotted a red Ford Explorer parked on the side of the road, with the missing tow dolly hitched behind the vehicle and towing a brown Plymouth Acclaim. Although the tow dolly had been re-painted, Mr. Williams recognized it as being the one taken from his shop by the wench he had installed on it. Mr. Williams called the Lenoir County Sheriff's Department and Detective Tim Murray, along with Detective Pearson, came out to the scene. The detectives were able to see an air compressor inside the Explorer, but were unable to confirm that it was the one taken from Mr. Williams's shop because the vehicle was locked. Using the license plate number, the detectives determined that the Explorer was registered to Lindsey Rouse. The detectives were also able to trace the Acclaim to Willie Sutton, who had previously reported the vehicle stolen in Craven County.

Detective Pearson returned the tow dolly to Mr. Williams, had Webb's Wrecker Service impound the Explorer and Acclaim, and asked to be notified if anyone contacted Webb's to claim the Explorer. On 11 August 2008, Webb's called Detective Pearson and told him that Ms. Rouse wanted to retrieve her vehicle. A detective went to Webb's and interviewed Ms. Rouse, who explained that the Explorer belonged to defendant, but instead of using his real name (Quinten Lavaughn Blount), she identified him as “Quinten Corbett.” She also told the detective that defendant had a bill of sale for the tow dolly. When Ms. Rouse and defendant went to Webb's the next day to get the Explorer from the impound yard, they produced a hand-written bill of sale for the tow dolly. Detective Chris Cahoon, who was at Webb's to assist in the investigation, asked Ms. Rouse for permission to search the Explorer. Ms. Rouse consented and Detective Cahoon found several power tools that matched the description of the items taken from Mr. Williams' shop. Detective Cahoon also found inside the Explorer a note stating that Ms. Rouse should tell investigators that the tow dolly belonged to her “boyfriend, Quinten Corbett” and that she let her boyfriend's uncle use the Explorer and tow dolly to pick up the Acclaim, which he had just purchased. The note also indicated that Ms. Rouse should tell investigators that “Mr. Corbett” was living in Florida, but that she would call his mother to see if she could find the bill of sale for the tow dolly.

When Detective Pearson interviewed defendant, he initially said that he had purchased the tow dolly in Ahoskie in 2007 and that his uncle—not he—was using the Explorer and tow dolly to pick up the Acclaim when the vehicles were impounded. Detective Pearson told defendant that the tow dolly had been positively identified by its owner and that several items found in the Explorer matched the description of items taken from the same location from which the tow dolly was taken. Defendant denied taking the tow dolly or any of the other items. Later during the conversation, defendant told Detective Pearson that he had purchased all the items in the Explorer, but was unable to provide any receipts. Defendant also told Detective Pearson that he and another man, Malcolm Smith, had taken the Acclaim from a residence on Highway 55 East. Mr. Smith, who was interviewed separately, admitted to being with defendant when the Acclaim was taken. All the items in the Explorer were seized and taken to the sheriff's office, where Mr. Williams identified the items as the property taken from his shop.

Defendant, during the entire investigation, told the investigating officers that his name was Quinten Bernard Corbett, and was initially indicted for possession of stolen goods under that name until it was discovered that his legal name was Quinten Lavaughn Blount. Defendant was subsequently charged with one count of possession of stolen goods, one count of possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and two counts of common law obstruction of justice. A hearing was held on 2 November 2009, where defendant pled guilty to felony possession of stolen goods and felony obstruction of justice. The trial court sentenced defendant to a presumptive-range term of eight to 10 months imprisonment and ordered defendant to pay $6,225.00 in restitution to Mr. Williams. Defendant timely appealed to this Court.

I

Defendant first argues that the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to felony obstruction of justice as the indictment was insufficient, on its face, to elevate the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–3 (2009). Although the State contends that defendant waived appellate review of this issue by pleading guilty, it is well established that a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the indictment despite having knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the charge. See State v. McGee, 175 N.C.App. 586, 587, 623 S.E.2d 782, 784 (2006) (“By knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty, an accused waives all defenses other than the sufficiency of the indictment.”), disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 489, 632 S.E.2d 768 (2006). Where, as here, “an indictment is alleged to be invalid on its face, thereby depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction, a challenge to that indictment may be made at any time, even if it was not contested in the trial court.” State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 503, 528 S.E.2d 326, 341, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1018, 121 S.Ct. 581, 148 L.Ed.2d 498 (2000).

“[A]n indictment is fatally defective when the indictment fails on the face of the record to charge an essential element of the offense.” State v. Bartley, 156 N.C.App. 490, 499, 577 S.E.2d 319, 324–25 (2003). Common law obstruction of justice, the offense with which defendant was charged, is ordinarily a misdemeanor. State v. Preston, 73 N.C.App. 174, 175, 325 S.E.2d 686, 688 (1985). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–3(b) provides that a misdemeanor may be elevated to a felony if the indictment alleges that the offense is “infamous, done in secrecy and malice, or [done] with deceit and intent to defraud....” This Court has held that “[t]o elevate the misdemeanor offense to a felony pursuant to G.S. 14–3(b), the indictment must specifically state that the offense was ‘infamous' or ‘done in secrecy and malice’ or done ‘with deceit and intent to defraud.’ ” State v. Bell, 121 N.C.App. 700, 702, 468 S.E.2d 484, 486 (1996) (quoting N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–3(b)); accord State v. Rambert, 116 N.C.App. 89, 93–94, 446 S.E.2d 599, 602 (1994) (“[F]or a conviction to be elevated under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–3(b), the indictment must warn the defendant of a possible elevation to felony status with a specific reference to ‘infamy,’ ‘secrecy and malice,’ or ‘deceit and intent to defraud.’ ” (quoting N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–3(b))), rev'd in part on other grounds, 341 N.C. 173, 459 S.E.2d 510 (1995). Where “[t]he indictment ... fail[s] to notify [the] defendant that the State s[eeks] a conviction for a felony” under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–3(b), “the superior court d[oes] not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.” Bell, 121 N.C.App. at 702, 468 S.E.2d at 486; Preston, 73 N.C.App. at 176–77, 325 S.E.2d at 688–89.

The indictment in this case alleges in pertinent part that defendant “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did obstruct justice by providing the false name of Quinton Bernard Corbett during a felony investigation, when in fact his real name is Quinten Lavaughn Blount. This act was done with deceit and intent to interfere with justice.” (Emphasis added.) Defendant contends that the discrepancy between § 14–3(b)'s language—“deceit and intent to defraud”—and the indictment's—“deceit and intent to interfere with justice”—is fatal to the trial court's jurisdiction. While defendant is correct that the indictment does not use the precise language supplied in § 14–3(b), we believe that the phrase used in the indictment is sufficiently similar to the statute's to provide adequate notice to defendant that the State intended to seek elevation of the offense to felony status. The indictment, moreover, alleges that defendant committed the act constituting the offense “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously.” See State v....