State v. Garcia

• Docket Number: COA 22-791
• Decision Date: 05 July 2023
• Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVE ANDREW GARCIA
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVE ANDREW GARCIA

No. COA 22-791

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

July 5, 2023

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 May 2023.

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 9 February 2022 by Judge Rebecca W. Holt in Wake County, No. 19 CRS 209718 Superior Court.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Ennis, for the State.

Blass Law, PLLC, by Danielle Blass, for the Defendant.

WOOD JUDGE

Steve Andrew Garcia ("Defendant") appeals from judgment entered upon his conviction for voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by: 1) failing to address the absolute impasse and in allowing defense counsel to make the final decision regarding whether Defendant should present an allocution statement; and 2) abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors. Defendant further contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing. For the following reasons, we hold the trial court did not err and overrule Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 May 2019, Defendant fatally stabbed twenty-one-year-old Jonathan Culbreth ("Culbreth"). At the time of the stabbing, Defendant was about seventeen years and eight months old. Defendant and Culbreth had known each other for approximately three years, and previously had a romantic relationship. While Culbreth was openly gay, Defendant did not openly share his sexual orientation. About one week before the altercation, Defendant told a mutual friend, Sydney Ojiambo ("Ojiambo"), he was mad at Culbreth for "putting . . . [his] information out there," by telling other individuals that he was gay.

On the day of the stabbing, Culbreth attended a gathering with friends, Nya Richardson ("Richardson"), Jaquavis Johnson ("Johnson"), and Nya Alston ("Alston"), at the home of Jazmyne Powell ("Powell"). In the late afternoon, Ojiambo picked up Defendant so they could smoke some marijuana together and drove to Powell's home to purchase drugs. Ojiambo proceeded to the front door of the home to make the purchase while Defendant remained in the vehicle. When Culbreth learned from Ojiambo that Defendant was waiting in the vehicle, according to Ojiambo, Culbreth stated jokingly, "let's go beat [Defendant's] ass." Culbreth proceeded outside followed by Alston and Johnson.

Culbreth walked up to the car where Defendant was sitting, and the two began speaking. According to witnesses, Culbreth told Defendant that there was a field right there if he wanted to fight, at which point Defendant responded that there was "no beef. We cool." According to Alston and Johnson, they turned around and started walking back to the house, expecting Culbreth to follow, but within seconds they heard the sounds of fighting and the sound of Culbreth's cup dropping to the ground.

Eventually, after fighting each other to the ground, Defendant, with knife in hand, stabbed Culbreth who had put his body on Defendant's face causing Defendant to be unable to breathe. After Defendant dropped the knife, Alston grabbed the knife to make sure no one else would get stabbed and hid it under the stairs of the apartment. Defendant looked for the knife but left in a vehicle when he could not find it. Culbreth was taken to the hospital where he underwent heart surgery. Although the surgery repaired the stabbing injury, he ultimately died from blood loss the same evening.

Defendant turned himself into law enforcement the next morning. On 1 July 2019, Defendant was indicted on first degree murder. The matter came on for trial by jury during the 31 January 2022 criminal session of Superior Court in Wake County. During the jury trial, Defendant testified in his own defense and stated that he turned himself into police because his family told him it was the right thing to do. On cross-examination, the following line of questioning occurred:

[Prosecutor]. You ran because you knew you did something wrong, right?

[Defendant]. Yes, ma'am.

[Prosecutor]. To be fair, you did not wake up on May 25th of 2019 intending to kill [Culbreth]; am I right about that?

[Defendant]. Yes, ma'am.

[Prosecutor]. But, ultimately, after everything was said and done, you knew that you were in the wrong, right?

[Defendant]. No, ma'am. [Prosecutor]. Well, you just said that.

[Defendant]. I regret, you know what I'm saying? I regret, like, what happened. And, ultimately, my uncle told me, he said to watch the news, because if he passes away, you've got to turn yourself in, you know. Me, I wasn't hoping that he passed away, you know.

[Prosecutor]. So, if he hadn't passed away, would you not have turned yourself in?

[Defendant]. I believe if he hadn't passed away, his family would have pressed charges, and I would have been going to court.

On 9 February 2022, the jury found Defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

At sentencing, several of Culbreth's family members and close friends gave victim-impact statements. The state prosecutor advocated for the trial court to sentence Defendant at the top of the presumptive range and argued aggravating circumstances such as: 1) the nature of the offense, including that Defendant was "armed with a deadly combat knife in this fight," while Culbreth "was completely unarmed"; 2) Defendant "had every opportunity to call for help for [Culbreth]" but did not do so; and 3) the evidence and jury's verdict indicated that Defendant had "intentionally caused [Culbreth's] death." The prosecutor requested Defendant be sentenced "at the top of the presumptive range, which is 64 to 89 months" based upon the evidence presented.

In response, Defendant's counsel requested that the trial court sentence Defendant at the bottom of the presumptive range, and argued several mitigating circumstances: 1) Defendant was seventeen years old when he committed the offense; 2) he had no prior criminal record; 3) Defendant wanted to give a statement to the sentencing court; 4) he had a positive employment history; 5) people in the community had submitted character letters about him, exhibiting he possessed a support system; 6) "the jury spoke" that the confrontation between Defendant and the victim was "an excessive-force situation" and not an aggressor situation; 7) Defendant had learning disabilities growing up; and 8) there is scientific evidence showing a boy's seventeenyear-old brain is not "fully developed." After presenting these factors, Defendant's trial counsel requested that the trial court "take all that into consideration when fashioning your judgment" and asked that Defendant be sentenced at the bottom of the presumptive range, a minimum 51 months. Additionally, Defendant's trial counsel put on the record that Defendant wanted to provide an allocution statement to the court: "Mr. Garcia wants to say something to the Court. I've advised him not to, and that's because there's, you know, probably going to be an appeal. But, you know, I would put that out there." Upon hearing this statement from counsel, the trial court engaged in the following exchange:

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Garcia, is there anything you would like to say to the Court? You don't have to, but if there's anything you'd like to say, I'd be glad to hear you.

THE DEFENDANT: No, ma'am.

On this same day, Defendant was sentenced, within the presumptive range, to a minimum of 64, maximum of 89 months, with credit for 991 days served prior to trial. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court.

II. Analysis

Defendant argues three issues on appeal pertaining to the propriety of his presumptive range sentence: 1) the trial court erred by allowing trial counsel's decision to control when an absolute impasse was reached on whether Defendant should provide an allocution statement at sentencing, and the matter had been brought to the trial court's attention; 2) the trial court erred by failing to consider mitigating factors when it sentenced Defendant; and 3) Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial counsel at his sentencing hearing based upon Defendant's previous two arguments. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting that we invoke Rule 21 of our North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to reach the merits of his second argument. For the reasons stated below, we grant Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to review the merits of his second argument.

A. Allocution Statement at Sentencing.

First, Defendant argues that the trial court's failure to recognize and address the Ali impasse, once raised by defense counsel, constitutes error and entitles Defendant to a new sentencing hearing. We disagree.

"The standard of review for alleged violations of constitutional rights is de novo." State v. Graham 200 N.C.App. 204, 214, 683 S.E.2d 437, 444 (2009) (citation omitted). A defendant has a constitutional right to control his defense. State v. McDowell, 329 N.C. 363, 380, 407 S.E.2d 200, 210 (1991). Tactical decisions in trial, "such as which witnesses to call, 'whether and how to conduct cross-examinations, what jurors to accept or strike, and what trial motions to make are ultimately the province of the lawyer.'" State v. Ali, 329 N.C. 394, 404, 407 S.E.2d 183, 189 (1991) (quoting State v. Luker, 65 N.C.App. 644, 649, 310 S.E.2d 63, 66 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, 311 N.C. 301, 316 S.E.2d 309 (1984)). However, when trial counsel and a "fully informed criminal defend...