State v. Campbell
Decision Date | 20 October 2015 |
Docket Number | No. COA13–1404–2.,COA13–1404–2. |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Craig CAMPBELL, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General, Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Allison, A. Angell, for the State.
Appellate Defender, Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender, Jason Christopher Yoder, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas Craig Campbell ("defendant") appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of breaking or entering a place of religious worship with intent to commit a larceny therein and larceny after breaking or entering. Defendant contends that (1) the indictment for larceny was fatally defective because it failed to allege that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property; (2) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for breaking or entering a place of religious worship with intent to commit a larceny therein; (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to object to the admission of evidence that defendant had committed a separate breaking or entering offense; (4) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the larceny charge due to a fatal variance as to the ownership of the property; (5) insufficient evidence supports his larceny conviction; and (6) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict with respect to the larceny charge. On 1 July 2014, this Court agreed with defendant on issues (1) and (2) and therefore failed to address defendant's remaining arguments. State v. Campbell, –––N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 759 S.E.2d 380, 387 (2014). But on 11 June 2015, on discretionary review, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed this Court's decision and held that (1) the larceny indictment was valid on its face even though it did not specify that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property; and (2) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for breaking or entering a place of religious worship with intent to commit a larceny therein. State v. Campbell, 368 N.C. 83, ––––, 772 S.E.2d 440, 444–45 (2015). The North Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for consideration of any remaining issues. See id. at ––––, 772 S.E.2d at 445.
Accordingly, we examine the remaining issues (3), (4), (5), and (6). We disagree with defendant on issue (3) but agree with defendant on issue (4). Because we agree with defendant on issue (4), we do not address issues (5) and (6). We find no error in part, vacate in part, and remand.
We review our discussion of the factual and procedural background from our previous opinion:
We examine defendant's remaining issues (3), (4), (5), and (6). Defendant contends that (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to object to the admission of evidence that defendant had committed a separate breaking or entering offense; (4) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the larceny charge due to a fatal variance as to the ownership of the property; (5) insufficient evidence supports his larceny conviction; and (6) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict with respect to the larceny charge. We disagree with defendant on issue (3) but agree with defendant on issue (4). Because we agree with defendant on issue (4), we do not address issues (5) and (6).
Defendant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, because he failed to object to the admission of evidence of defendant's breaking or entering a house on the same night that he entered the church. Defendant argues that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Campbell
...opinion, this Court disagreed with defendant on Issue (3) but agreed with defendant on Issue (4). State v. Campbell , 243 N.C.App. 563, 777 S.E.2d 525 (2015) (" Campbell COA II "), review allowed in part , 368 N.C. 904, 794 S.E.2d 800 (2016) (" Campbell SC review of COA II allowed "), and r......
-
State v. McNair
...this type of alleged error is "sufficiently serious to justify the exercise of our authority under Rule 2 [,]" State v. Campbell , ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 777 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2015) (quotation marks and brackets omitted), we elect to exercise our discretion under Rule 2 and review this iss......
-
State v. Campbell
...appropriate based upon the invocation of Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 State v. Campbell , 243 N.C. App. 563, 571, 777 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2015).Having decided to invoke Rule 2, the Court of Appeals then addressed the merits of defendant's argument and determined ......
-
State v. Campbell
...violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict with respect to the larceny charge.See State v. Campbell , ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 777 S.E.2d 525, 528 (2015) ( Campbell II ). The court found "that the trial court committed no error in convicting defendant of breaking or enter......