State v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 04 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. COA15–876,COA15–876 |
| Citation | 791 S.E.2d 505,249 N.C.App. 642 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina, v. Adam Robert JACKSON, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph A. Newsome, for the State.
Gerding Blass, PLLC, by Danielle Blass, for Defendant–Appellant.
Adam Robert Jackson ("Defendant") appeals from a Judgment Suspending Sentence following his plea of no contest to one count of manufacturing marijuana. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant application was insufficient to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause. After careful review, we hold that the warrant application provided a substantial basis to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause. Accordingly, we affirm.
On 30 January 2013, Detective Jessica Jurney and another officer with the Narcotics Division of the Iredell County Sheriff's Office conducted a knock-and-talk at the home of a person they had never met. The officers indicated to the person that she could face criminal charges based on her1 possession of marijuana. The person ("confidential informant" or "informant") agreed to provide information regarding where she obtained the marijuana. The informant told Detective Jurney that she had purchased marijuana from Defendant, a male in his early 20s, "with long dark hair."
The informant provided Defendant's name, stated that she had purchased marijuana at Defendant's residence on multiple occasions, and noted that she had most recently purchased marijuana from Defendant at his residence two days earlier. The informant explained that during her most recent purchase, Defendant asked her to wait for him in a front room and went into a bedroom located on the right side of his house. The informant then heard the sound of a key turning in a lock. Defendant returned with a mason jar containing marijuana and sold a portion of it to the informant.
The informant told Detective Jurney that Defendant's residence was located off Old Mountain Road in a wooded area across from a development called "Old Mountain Village." The informant described Defendant's home as a "modular home/trailer." The informant then led Detective Jurney to a driveway with a mailbox marker that read 2099 Old Mountain Road. The informant explained to Detective Jurney that the driveway forked in two separate directions at the end and stated that Defendant's residence was located on the left side of the fork. Subsequently, Captain Clarence Harris of the Iredell County Sheriff's Office drove to the same location and confirmed that a light-colored modular home was located on the left side of a fork in the driveway.
Detective Jurney searched the CJ LEADS database, a database wherein law enforcement officers can refer to DMV information or criminal charges, for "Adam Jackson." The search revealed that a person named "Adam Robert Jackson" resided at 2099 Old Mountain Road in Hiddenite, North Carolina, and was twenty-two years old. In the photograph, Adam Jackson had shoulder length brown hair and brown eyes.
On 31 January 2013, Detective Jurney contacted Deputy Kelly Ward of the Narcotics Division of the Alexander County Sheriff's Office. Because the address was located in Alexander County, Detective Jurney notified Deputy Ward of all of the information that had been relayed to her by the informant. On that same day, Detective Jurney and Deputy Ward applied to the Alexander County Magistrate for a search warrant for Defendant's residence. As part of the warrant application, Deputy Ward submitted an affidavit in which he attached a statement by Detective Jurney detailing the information that the confidential informant had relayed to her. Deputy Ward's affidavit stated that in addition to receiving information from Detective Jurney, he had "received information on several occasions throughout the past year from concerned citizens in the area of the premise to be searched, about drug traffic mainly [m]arijuana at the premise to be searched." Deputy Ward also noted that he had searched Defendant's criminal history and discovered that Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in December 20122 in Alexander County.
An Alexander County Magistrate issued a search warrant for Defendant's residence, which law enforcement officers executed the same day. The search revealed "indoor grow equipment," marijuana, and "plants," which officers seized.
On 24 June 2013, Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to manufacture, sell, and deliver marijuana; manufacturing marijuana; felony possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance; and maintaining a vehicle/dwelling/place for a controlled substance.3 On 19 November 2013, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the search of his residence.
Defendant's motion was heard on 9 February 2015 by Judge Joseph N. Crosswhite in Alexander County Superior Court. Deputy Ward and Detective Jurney testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Crosswhite denied Defendant's motion to suppress, and, on 13 March 2015, entered a written order to the same effect.
Two days after the suppression hearing, on 11 February 2015, Defendant pled no contest to one count of driving while impaired and one count of manufacturing marijuana. Defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for the driving while impaired charge, and 6–17 months imprisonment for the manufacturing marijuana charge; however, both sentences were suspended for 30 months of supervised probation, subject to certain terms and conditions.
We initially address this Court's jurisdiction over this appeal. On 24 February 2015, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal stating that he "appeals the Order of the Superior Court denying Defendant's motion to suppress all physical evidence seized by law enforcement officers during the search of [ ] Defendant's residence on the date of the alleged offense, entered in this action." The Notice of Appeal further specified that "[t]he right to this appeal was specifically reserved as part of Defendant's guilty plea."
This Court has held that:
[I]n order to properly appeal the denial of a motion to suppress after a guilty plea, a defendant must take two steps: (1) he must, prior to finalization of the guilty plea, provide the trial court and the prosecutor with notice of his intent to appeal the motion to suppress order, and (2) he must timely and properly appeal from the final judgment.
State v. Cottrell , 234 N.C.App. 736, 739–40, 760 S.E.2d 274, 277 (2014) ; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A–979(b) (2015) ().
Here, Defendant gave notice to the State that he intended to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and the reservation of the right was noted in the transcript of his no contest plea, which provided:
"Defendant expressly reserves the right to appeal the Court's denial of Defendant's Motion to Suppress, and his plea herein is conditioned upon his right to appeal that decision pursuant to [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 15A–979(b)." However, Defendant's 24 February 2015 Notice of Appeal failed to indicate that he was appealing from the Judgment Suspending Sentence entered against him as a result of his 11 February 2015 plea of no contest, as is required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A–979(b). Instead, Defendant's Notice of Appeal only indicated that he was appealing from the order denying his motion to suppress.
On 5 September 2015, Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking this Court to review the Judgment Suspending Sentence. "Whether to allow a petition and issue the writ of certiorari is not a matter of right and rests within the discretion of this Court." State v. Biddix , ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 780 S.E.2d 863, 866 (2015) (citation omitted). North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a) provides:
The writ of certiorari may be issued in appropriate circumstances by either appellate court to permit review of the judgments and orders of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action, or when no right of appeal from an interlocutory order exists, or for review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A–1422(c)(3) of an order of the trial court ruling on a motion for appropriate relief.
N.C. R. App. P. 21. In State v. Cottrell , this Court exercised its discretion and granted the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari, "because it is apparent that the State was aware of defendant's intent to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress prior to the entry of defendant's guilty pleas and because defendant has lost his appeal through no fault of his own...." 234 N.C.App. at 740, 760 S.E.2d at 277. Here, applying the same reasoning as this Court imposed in Cottrell , we grant Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and address Defendant's appeal on the merits.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree.
Our standard of review on an appeal from an order denying a motion to suppress is "whether the trial judge's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge's ultimate conclusions of law."
State v. Johnson , 98 N.C.App. 290, 294, 390 S.E.2d 707, 709 (1990) (quoting State v. Cooke , 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982) ). The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo . State v. O'Connor , 222 N.C.App. 235, 238–39, 730 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Under a de novo review, the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...were located on the premises of [the Raleigh residence]." Id. at ––––, 814 S.E.2d at 860 ; see also State v. Jackson , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 791 S.E.2d 505, 511 (2016) ("In order for a reviewing court to weigh an informant’s tip as confidential and reliable, ‘evidence is needed to show ......
-
State v. Martin
... ... cards and fraudulently obtained electronics. Green was an ... identifiable informant at the police station, interviewed ... face-to-face by law enforcement officers. She was not an ... anonymous caller lacking any indicia of reliability. See ... State v. Jackson , 249 N.C.App. 642, 654, 791 S.E.2d 505, ... 513 (2016), (quotation marks and citation omitted), ... aff'd , 370 N.C. 337, 807 S.E.2d 141 (2017) ... (noting that when considering a confidential informant's ... reliability, "the nature of th[e] face-to-face ... ...
-
State v. Foster
...234 (2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).This case presents a similar factual and legal scenario as in State v. Jackson , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 791 S.E.2d 505 (2016), aff'd , 370 N.C. 337, 807 S.E.2d 141 (2017). In Jackson , this Court concluded that a police officer using an inform......
-
State v. Forte
...statements, including that Mr. Oliver made substantial admissions against his penal interest. See, e.g., State v. Jackson , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 791 S.E.2d 505, 511 (2016) ("In order for a reviewing court to weigh an informant's tip as confidential and reliable, evidence is needed to s......