State v. Maldonado
Decision Date | 17 May 2022 |
Docket Number | COA21-308 |
Citation | 871 S.E.2d 881 (Table) |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina, v. Calixto Gonzalez MALDONADO, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kayla D. Britt, for the State.
Joseph P. Lattimore, for the Defendant.
¶ 1 Calixto Gonzalez Maldonado ("Defendant") appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, seeking review through a petition for writ of certiorari. Because Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his appeal is meritorious, in our discretion we deny the petition and dismiss Defendant's appeal.
¶ 2 This case deals with a narcotics investigation that resulted in Defendant's arrest in the parking lot of a Union County Harris Teeter. On 18 November 2019, Detective C. Little of the Union County Sheriff's Office set up a drug bust with confidential informant, L. Newsome ("Ms. Newsome"). Ms. Newsome had reliably worked as an informant for Detective Little on several prior occasions, and Ms. Newsome approached Detective Little about a potential heroin source who would be willing to sell to her. Detective Little asked Ms. Newsome to tell her source, an anonymous third party, to have the drug runner meet at the Harris Teeter on Idlewild Road.
¶ 3 Detective Little and his colleagues from the Union County Sheriff's Department waited in the Harris Teeter parking lot, all the while exchanging texts with Ms. Newsome on the runner's whereabouts. Ms. Newsome described the runner as a "Hispanic male" and notified Detective Little that a "brown Ford Taurus" would be arriving in "seven minutes" to the Harris Teeter. No such vehicle arrived, but around the time the runner was expected, a black Ford SUV arrived and began circling the parking lot. The SUV did not stay parked but continued to circle the lot and park briefly in different spaces. Ms. Newsome notified Detective Little that the runner was unable to make contact and decided to leave, and right around that time, Detective Little observed the SUV exit the parking lot. Ms. Newsome asked the runner to return to the lot and told Detective Little that the runner would be back in "four minutes." Just a few minutes later, the SUV returned to the parking lot.
¶ 4 After the SUV returned, the source told Ms. Newsome to meet the runner inside the Harris Teeter. Shortly thereafter, Defendant, the SUV's driver, exited the car and began walking to the Harris Teeter. Detective Little began to approach Defendant in his unmarked pickup truck. After getting closer, Detective Little turned on his blue lights to identify himself as a police officer. Defendant immediately began to run in the opposite direction of Detective Little. After Defendant refused Detective Little's orders to stop running, a chase ensued, which resulted in Detective Little taking Defendant into custody. Soon after Defendant was apprehended, Ms. Newsome texted Detective Little that her source was asking for an update on the transaction because the driver was no longer responding.
¶ 5 The Union County officers searched Defendant's person, finding a cigarette pack emptied of cigarettes but containing heroin. Thereafter, a K-9 on the scene alerted the officers to the presence of narcotics in the SUV. The officers conducted a search of the SUV, finding cash and heroin in the center console.
¶ 6 Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for trafficking in heroin by transportation, trafficking in heroin by possession, and maintaining a vehicle for keeping and selling heroin. On 17 September 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress, which was heard by the Honorable Jeffrey Carpenter on 6 November 2020. The trial court denied Defendant's motion at the hearing and in a written order dated 30 December 2020. The order's findings and conclusions are elaborated as needed below.
¶ 7 On 17 December 2020, about two weeks before the written order was filed, Defendant pled guilty to trafficking heroin by possession and was sentenced to 90 to 120 months in prison. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the other charges were dismissed. The judgment was entered on 17 December 2020, and Defendant subsequently gave oral notice of appeal. Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court, and the State filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant's appeal. Both the petition and motion were referred to this panel.
¶ 8 "An order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence may be reviewed upon an appeal from judgment of conviction, including a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-979(b) (2021). Although not included in the statute by the legislature, our Supreme Court later added a notice requirement to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-979(b). See State v. Reynolds , 298 N.C. 380, 397, 259 S.E.2d 843, 853 (1979). Under this requirement, a defendant will waive his right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress unless he "give[s] notice of his intention to the prosecutor and to the court before plea negotiations are finalized[.]" State v. Tew , 326 N.C. 732, 735, 392 S.E.2d 603, 605 (1990).
¶ 9 Here, the record does not reflect formal notice of Defendant's intention to appeal the denial until after the judgment was pronounced. Because Defendant did not notice his intent to appeal before plea negotiations were finalized, the State argues that Defendant waived his statutory right to appeal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-979(b).
Ricks , 2021-NCSC-116, ¶1, 378 N.C. at 738.
¶ 11 Here, Defendant has not shown that his argument is meritorious or that the trial court probably committed error. Therefore, we deny Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari for the reasons below.
¶ 12 To establish the merit of his petition for writ of certiorari and reveal the errors he asserts were committed by the trial court, Defendant incorporates the arguments from his brief filed contemporaneously with this Court. In his brief, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by making four erroneous findings and failing to address in its findings (1) whether the officers attempted an investigatory stop before Defendant took flight, (2) Detective Little's testimony that Defendant was observed entering the grocery store before continuing to circle around the parking lot, and (3) the informant referred to the runner's vehicle as a brown Ford Taurus, not a dark colored Ford SUV.
¶ 13 In its order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court made the following undisputed findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial