State v. Gilley
Decision Date | 16 November 1999 |
Docket Number | No. COA98-1124.,COA98-1124. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond Fredrick GILLEY, Defendant. |
Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Teresa L. Harris, for the State.
Clifford, Clendenin, O'Hale and Jones, L.L.P., by Walter L. Jones, Greensboro, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant appeals judgment entered upon convictions by a jury of first degree kidnapping, domestic criminal trespass, communicating threats, misdemeanor breaking and entering, and assault on a female. We vacate the latter conviction.
The State's evidence at trial tended to show the following: Defendant and Vicky Gilley (Mrs. Gilley) were married in March 1989 and separated 5 February 1995. Mrs. Gilley continued to reside in the marital residence with the couple's daughter and Mrs. Gilley's twin daughters from a previous marriage. After two violent incidents between defendant and Mrs. Gilley, one occurring at the former marital residence and the other at the home of Mrs. Gilley's parents, a domestic violence protective order (the order), effective until 16 March 1996, was issued 16 March 1995 and served upon defendant that same date.
Notwithstanding, defendant entered the marital residence on 7 January 1996 armed with a knife. Following a physical altercation with Mrs. Gilley, defendant forced her into his truck, but she jumped out and escaped while he was operating the vehicle.
On 23 January 1996, Mrs. Gilley filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff alleged defendant "kicked the [house] door in," "physically abused" her, "ripped off [her] clothes," "kidnapped [her] from the residence," and "abducted the [couple's] daughter—Erica." At a hearing conducted in Guilford County District Court, defendant admitted he went to Mrs. Gilley's residence on 7 January 1996, kicked in the door, "slapp[ed] Vicky around," ripped off her clothes, and took her outside to his truck, and that he knew the order was in effect when he committed the foregoing acts. Defendant thereupon was ordered committed to the Guilford County jail for 30 days based upon the court's determination he had "willfully failed to comply with the Domestic Violence Protective Order and [wa]s in Criminal Contempt."
On 18 March 1996, defendant was indicted upon charges of first degree burglary, first degree kidnapping, domestic criminal trespass, communicating threats, and assault on a female in connection with the 7 January 1996 incident. On 8 August 1996, defendant filed a "Plea of Former Jeopardy," moving for dismissal (defendant's motion) of all criminal charges except that of communicating threats based upon the principle of double jeopardy. The trial court rejected defendant's motion and defendant was subsequently convicted by a jury at trial on all counts save that of burglary. In the latter instance, he was found guilty of non-felonious breaking or entering. The offenses were consolidated for judgment and defendant was ordered "imprisoned for a minimum term of 145 months [and] for a maximum term of 183 months." Defendant timely appealed.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss. We agree in limited part.
State v. Elliott, 344 N.C. 242, 277, 475 S.E.2d 202, 218 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1106, 117 S.Ct. 1111, 137 L.Ed.2d 312 (1997).
340 S.E.2d at 707, is implicated herein; see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2855-56, 125 L.Ed.2d 556, 568 (1993)(constitutional protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions).
overruled on other grounds, McDowell v. Dixon, 858 F.2d 945 (4th Cir.1988) ().
The most recent "binding," id., decision of the United States Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) pertinent to our inquiry herein is that of United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), in actuality two cases joined for appeal which resulted in a multiplicity of opinions. The majority holdings were constructed by interweaving the Supreme Court's five separate opinions.
In Dixon, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the sole test applied to determine whether a successive prosecution—based upon conduct which had resulted in an adjudication of contempt—is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause was the "same-elements" test set out in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932):
The same-elements test, sometimes referred to as the "Blockburger" test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the "same offence" and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.
Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696, 113 S.Ct. at 2856, 125 L.Ed.2d at 568.
Id. at 697, 113 S.Ct. at 2856, 125 L.Ed.2d at 568 (quoting Grady, 495 U.S. at 510, 110 S.Ct. at 2087, 109 L.Ed.2d at 557).
Although a majority of the Supreme Court in Dixon agreed the Blockburger test was equivalent to the "same-elements" test, differing applications thereof were proffered in the Court's multiple opinions. In rendering the opinion of the Supreme Court on most issues, Justice Scalia emphasized examination of the content and language of the previous court order, while Chief Justice Rehnquist, in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bernacki
...2012 Iowa App. LEXIS 303 (April 25, 2012); State v. Gonzales, 123 N.M. 337, 340-41, 940 P.2d 195 (App. 1997); State v. Gilley, 135 N.C. App. 519, 526-27, 522 S.E.2d 111 (1999), cert. denied, 353 N.C. 528, 549 S.E.2d 860 (2001); Commonwealth v. Yerby, 544 Pa. 578, 587-88, 679 A.2d 217 (1996)......
-
State v. Bernacki
...2012 Iowa App. LEXIS 303 (April 25, 2012);State v. Gonzales, 123 N.M. 337, 340–41, 940 P.2d 185 (App.1997); State v. Gilley, 135 N.C.App. 519, 526–27, 522 S.E.2d 111 (1999), cert. denied, 353 N.C. 528, 549 S.E.2d 860 (2001); Commonwealth v. Yerby, 544 Pa. 578, 587–88, 679 A.2d 217 (1996); E......
-
Commonwealth v. Telcinord
...§ 120 ) and abuse prevention (G. L. c. 209A, § 3 ), which serve to effectuate different purposes. See generally State v. Gilley, 135 N.C. App. 519, 527-530, 522 S.E.2d 111 (1999) (distinguishing between North Carolina's domestic criminal trespass statute and domestic violence protective ord......
-
United States v. Kelly
...are inconclusive as to whether a finding of “force and violence” or “force or violence” is required. Compare State v. Gilley, 135 N.C.App. 519, 522 S.E.2d 111, 117 (1999) ( “Assault is defined as ‘an overt act or an attempt, or the unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violen......