State v. Applewhite
| Decision Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | COA20-610 |
| Citation | 868 S.E.2d 137 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Robin APPLEWHITE |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General A. Mercedes Restucha-Klem, for the State.
Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.
¶ 1 Robin Applewhite ("Defendant") appeals from judgments entered upon a jury's verdicts finding him guilty of twelve counts of human trafficking, eleven counts of promoting prostitution and four counts of conspiracy to promote prostitution and attaining habitual felon status. We find no error.
¶ 2 Defendant met several adult women, A.C., H.M., A.B., M.F., J.O. and E.C. between December 2012 and March 2015 (parties agree to permit use of pseudonyms to protect the identity of the victims). Defendant capitalized on the women's addictions to heroin
and dire economic circumstances to manipulate them to engage in prostitution arranged via online advertisements set up by Defendant and his wife, Samantha Rivard ("Rivard"). The women gave money paid and received from engaging in sexual acts to Defendant in exchange for heroin, food, transportation, and a place to live.
¶ 3 Defendant withheld drugs, food, sleep and means of communication from the women with family and friends. He locked the women in a hotel room or in the basement of his own home on occasions.
¶ 4 Defendant drove the women across North Carolina, from Fayetteville to Charlotte, Raleigh, Wilmington, and across state lines to Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida, to engage in sexual acts in exchange for money. Rivard posted the women's images on Backpage, an online classified advertising website, to solicit and schedule customers. A.C.’s advertisement was posted at least 197 times in three cities. M.F. was posted 219 times in at least three cities.
¶ 5 In March 2015, J.O. alleged she was forced to perform sexual acts for money against her will, while she was restrained in a basement and after being transported to Charlotte. On 18 March 2015, Defendant was arrested and charged with second-degree kidnapping, human trafficking and sexual servitude. On 2 April 2015, police searched the home located on Cedarwood Avenue in Spring Lake where J.O. alleged she had been held. Rivard was also arrested.
¶ 6 Defendant was indicted on 14 November 2016 for multiple charges of human trafficking, promoting prostitution, and conspiring to promote prostitution against six alleged victims. On 2 January 2018, corresponding habitual felon indictments were issued in each of the previously indicted files. Defendant was also indicted on the following additional charges against alleged victim J.O. for second degree kidnapping and attaining habitual felon status.
¶ 7 Defendant was ordered to undergo an examination at Central Regional Hospital to determine his capacity to proceed to trial. Dr. Charles Vance, a forensic psychiatrist, conducted an initial forensic interview on 8 September 2016, with a final evaluation dated 10 November 2016. He found Defendant was mentally competent to proceed to trial. On 18 January 2017, Superior Court Judge James Ammons conducted a competency hearing. The court heard Dr. Vance's testimony concerning his evaluation of Defendant and his opinion concluding Defendant understood the charges against him and was competent to stand trial. Defendant was found competent to stand trial.
¶ 8 On 29 January 2019, another hearing on Defendant's capacity was held by Superior Court Judge Thomas Locke. Defendant was represented by counsel. On its own motion, the court received into evidence a report submitted from Dr. Vance dated October 2016. The court engaged in lengthy discussions with Defendant regarding his medical condition, capacity to proceed, and his stated desire to represent himself throughout the hearing. The court entered its findings and conclusion:
THE COURT: As seen by Dr. Charles Vance at Central Regional Hospital during the period of time between September 14, 2016 and October 5, 2016. That Dr. Vance conducted an extensive examination of the defendant and prepared a nine-page report, that Dr. Vance concluded that the defendant is, quote, quite cynical and mistrustful, closed quote, in that he suffers from an unspecified personality disorder, cocaine use disorder, opiate use disorder, illness anxiety disorder and has some history of malingering but that Dr. Vance found that Mr. Applewhite's displayed behaviors do not rise to the level of negating his fundamental capacity to proceed to trial. Dr. Vance rather opined that Mr. Applewhite demonstrated a good understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings against him and that he likewise comprehended his position in reference to these proceedings. In fact, Mr. Applewhite does maintain the ability to work with his attorney in a rational and reasonable manner in the preparation of his defense if he so chooses. Dr. Vance further found that in his opinion Mr. Applewhite was competent. Based upon this report, based upon the representations of [counsel] ... he has not questioned the defendant's mental capacity, based upon the Court's observations of the defendant and the state moreover not questioning the defendant's capacity, the Court does find and concludes as a matter of law that the defendant is able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him. He is able to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings and he is able to assist in the defense in a rational or reasonable manner in that he does possess the capacity to proceed. (emphasis supplied).
¶ 9 Defendant was represented by several attorneys prior to waiving his right to counsel and choosing to proceed pro se to trial.
¶ 10 On the morning of trial on 18 February 2019, and numerous times throughout the pendency of the case, Defendant demanded to represent himself. Defendant waived his right to counsel. The court appointed stand-by counsel.
¶ 11 Defendant filed a motion to continue the trial, stating he did not believe he was mentally competent due to a medical condition which caused an increase in ammonia in his blood to a point where he can become delusional. The trial court considered and determined Defendant was taking his medication and was not actively experiencing delusions. Based on its own observations and interactions with Defendant, the court denied Defendant's motion to continue the trial. The court periodically confirmed Defendant received his medication throughout the trial.
¶ 12 During trial, A.C. testified numerous other women had similar working arrangements with Defendant and Rivard. The couple posted classified ads on Backpage and rented hotel rooms in various cities, including Fayetteville, Greensboro, Raleigh, Charlotte, Wilmington, Jacksonville, Roanoke, Myrtle Beach and Orlando. A.C. testified she relied upon Defendant to supply the heroin she needed to avoid going into withdrawal and for her meals. A.C. testified Defendant might dispense food and drugs generously, or, if he was upset, would withhold them.
¶ 13 H.M. and A.B. testified to having similar experiences with Defendant and Rivard, as A.C. had described. They also testified regarding M.F., her addiction to heroin
, and being held by Defendant for acts of sexual servitude. M.F. died before Defendant's trial began.
¶ 14 The jury returned unanimous verdicts and found Defendant guilty of five counts of human trafficking A.C. over a period of two months; two counts of human trafficking H.M. over a period of two months; two counts of human trafficking M.F. over a period of one month; and three counts of trafficking A.B. over a period of fifteen months. The jury found Defendant not guilty of two counts of human trafficking E.C. and not guilty of three counts of human trafficking J.O.
¶ 15 The State calculated fourteen prior record points and sentenced Defendant as a prior record level five. The fourteen prior record points were based upon Defendant's four previous felony convictions and two previous Class 1 misdemeanor convictions, which were separate from the three prior felony convictions used to establish Defendant's habitual felon status.
¶ 16 Defendant was ordered to register as a sex offender and received an active total sentence of 2,880 to 3,744 months. Defendant appeals.
¶ 17 This appeal is properly before this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(1) and 15A-1444(a) (2019).
¶ 18 Defendant raises four issues on appeal, whether: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Defendant to represent himself; (2) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the human trafficking charges; (3) the trial court erred in entering judgment for multiple counts of human trafficking for each victim; and, (4) the trial court erred in determining Defendant's prior record level.
¶ 19 "[W]here matters are left to the discretion of the trial court, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Beck , 278 N.C. App. 255, 263, 2021-NCCOA-305, ¶ 28, 861 S.E.2d 575, 582 (2021) (citation omitted).
¶ 20 Defendant argues the trial court's statements concluding he had an "absolute right" to represent himself and the court's failure to consider whether Defendant fell into the "gray area" of being competent enough to waive counsel is a mistake of law that requires a new trial.
¶ 21 The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a criminal defendant the "right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so." Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2527, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 566 (1975).
¶ 22 Our Supreme Court has considered whether a defendant, who falls within the "borderline competent" or "gray area" of defendants with mental illness, should be precluded from self-representation....
To continue reading
Request your trial