State v. Coley
| Decision Date | 06 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. COA17-470,COA17-470 |
| Citation | 257 N.C.App. 780,810 S.E.2d 359 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lindsey COLEY, Jr. |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Laura H. McHenry and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Jo Uicker, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Wyatt Orsbon, for defendant-appellant.
In this appeal, we once again address the quantum of proof necessary for a defendant to be lawfully convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana. The evidence at trial established that the defendant's vehicle contained 11.5 grams of marijuana packaged in two sandwich bags, a digital scale, and 23 other loose sandwich bags. Because we conclude that the evidence—when viewed in the light most favorable to the State—was sufficient for a reasonable juror to have found him guilty of this offense, we affirm the defendant's convictions.
The State introduced evidence at trial tending to establish the following facts: On 29 May 2015, Officer Miles Costa of the Nashville Police Department was driving his patrol vehicle on the east side of Nashville, North Carolina when he noticed expired tags on a car being driven by Robert Lindsey Coley, Jr. ("Defendant"). After verifying that the vehicle's registration was expired, Officer Costa pulled over Defendant's car and approached the driver's side.
Defendant told Officer Costa that he did not have his driver's license with him and that he could not find his registration card. While speaking to Defendant, Officer Costa smelled the odor of marijuana and asked him to exit the vehicle. Officer Costa then asked Defendant if he had any marijuana in the car, and Defendant responded that there was some in the glove compartment. Defendant was placed in handcuffs while Officer Costa conducted a search of the vehicle. He found a sandwich bag containing 8.6 grams of marijuana in the glove compartment. Upon returning to his patrol vehicle to weigh the marijuana, Officer Costa was informed by Defendant that there was also a digital scale in the center console of the car.
By this time, another officer had arrived on the scene, and the two officers searched the vehicle together. They found a digital scale, another sandwich bag containing 2.9 grams of marijuana, and two partially smoked marijuana cigars in the center console. Thirteen Dutch Masters cigar wrappers, along with one unopened package of cigars, were discovered elsewhere in the car. The officers found a box of sandwich bags in the backseat that had been opened along with 23 loose sandwich bags strewn throughout the vehicle.
Defendant also had over $800 in cash on his person. He informed the officers that he had just cashed his paycheck, and Officer Costa found a pay stub in the vehicle.
Defendant told the officers that he kept the scale in his car to ensure that he actually received from his sellers the precise amount of marijuana that he had purchased so as to avoid being "ripped off." He further stated that the sandwich bags were in his vehicle because "his drug dealers were cheap and ... [h]e had to provide his own bags."
Defendant was indicted by a Nash County grand jury on 5 October 2015 on the charges of possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. A jury trial was held beginning on 29 August 2016 before the Honorable Quentin T. Sumner.
Officer Costa testified on direct examination, in pertinent part, as follows:
At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver based on insufficiency of the evidence. The trial court denied his motion.
During Defendant's case-in-chief, the following exchange occurred between Defendant and his attorney:
Defendant renewed his motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence, and the trial court once again denied his motion. On 30 August 2016, the jury convicted him of both charges. The trial court consolidated the convictions and sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment between 6 and 17 months, suspended the sentence, and placed him on supervised probation for 18 months. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court prior to the entry of the judgment.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether we possess jurisdiction over this appeal. Rule 4(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Here, Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court after the jury returned its verdict but prior to the entry of judgment by the trial court. Thus, because he did not give notice of his appeal following entry of the judgment, his right to appeal has been lost based on his failure to comply with Rule 4(a). See State v. Robinson , 236 N.C. App. 446, 448, 763 S.E.2d 178, 179 (2014) (), aff'd as modified , 368 N.C. 402, 777 S.E.2d 755 (2015).
Defendant has filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting appellate review of his convictions in the event that his notice of appeal is deemed by this Court to be defective. Pursuant to Rule 21(a)(1) of the Appellate Rules, this Court may, in its discretion, grant a petition for writ of certiorari and review an order or judgment entered by the trial court "when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action. ..." N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1).
Here, the State does not contend that it was misled by Defendant's defective notice of appeal and acknowledges that it is within this Court's discretion to allow the petition. See State v. Springle , 244 N.C. App. 760, 763, 781 S.E.2d 518, 521 (2016) .
In our discretion, we elect to grant Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and proceed to address the merits of his argument. See Robinson , 236 N.C. App. at 448, 763 S.E.2d at 180 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blagg
...so substantial that this factor—by itself—supports an inference of possession with intent to sell or deliver." State v. Coley , 257 N.C. App. 780, 788–89, 810 S.E.2d 359 (2018). In cases which focus on the sufficiency of the evidence of a defendant's intent to sell or deliver a controlled s......
-
State v. Woods
...or close cases, our courts have consistently expressed a preference for submitting issues to the jury." State v. Coley , 257 N.C. App. 780, 789, 810 S.E.2d 359, 365 (2018) (purgandum ).A. Access Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial did not show embezzlement because Defend......
-
State v. Steele
...light most favorable to the State with every reasonable inference drawn in the State's favor." State v. Coley , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 810 S.E.2d 359, 363 (2018) (citation omitted). "[S]o long as the evidence supports a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt, a motion to dismiss i......
-
State v. Blagg
...or close cases, our courts have consistently expressed a preference for submitting issues to the jury." State v. Coley , 257 N.C. App. 780, 810 S.E.2d 359, 365 (2018) (purgandum ).Analysis "[I]t is unlawful for any person ... [to] possess with intent to manufacture, sell or deliver, a contr......