State v. Miranda

• Decision Date: 19 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. COA13–1374.,COA13–1374.
• Citation: 762 S.E.2d 349
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel MIRANDA.

762 S.E.2d 349

STATE of North Carolina

v.Daniel MIRANDA.

No. COA13–1374.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 19, 2014.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 2 August 2013 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 March 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Melody R. Hairston, for the State.

N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, by Mary E. McNeill, Raeford, for Defendant.

ERVIN, Judge.

Defendant Daniel Miranda appeals from a judgment entered based upon his convictions for trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing and felonious possession of cocaine. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trafficking in cocaine by manufacturing indictment that had been returned against him was fatally defective, that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury concerning the issue of his guilt of the lesser included offense of manufacturing cocaine, that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury that a conviction for trafficking in cocaine by manufacturing based upon compounding required a finding that Defendant intended to distribute the substance in question, and that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support his conviction for trafficking in cocaine by manufacturing. After careful consideration of Defendant's challenges to the trial court's judgment in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court's judgment should remain undisturbed.

I. Factual Background

A. Substantive Facts

On 19 July 2012, Detectives Randall Ackley and Brad Gillis of the Johnston County Sheriff's Office went to Defendant's mobile home in Benson. Upon arriving at that location, the investigating officers met Defendant and his sister, informed Defendant that they had come to his residence for the purpose of serving outstanding warrants, and asked Defendant to identify the room that he occupied. In response to this inquiry, Defendant indicated that he occupied a room located at the far end of the mobile home.

After Defendant's father arrived at the residence, he consented to allow the investigating officers to conduct a search of the mobile home. As a result, Defendant led Detective Ackley into the interior of the mobile home and down the hallway to his room. As he entered Defendant's bedroom, DetectiveAckley observed the presence of several items that caused him to ask Defendant to leave the room and wait in the mobile home's living room with Detective Gillis while he conducted his search.

At the time that he initially inspected the bedroom, Detective Ackley noted a mirror that had been placed against the wall and observed an end table on which were situated cellular phones, two digital scales, and a bag containing a green leafy substance that Detective Ackley believed to be marijuana, based upon his training and experience. In addition, Detective Ackley found a box of plastic bags on the coffee table in the bedroom. After looking behind the mirror, Detective Ackley found an orange pill bottle that contained a white substance. After making this discovery, Detective Ackley repositioned the mirror and went to the living room to get Detective Gillis.

When the investigating officers reached Defendant's bedroom, Detective Ackley showed Detective Gillis what he had discovered on the table and behind the mirror and asked Defendant to enter the room. At that point, Detective Gillis asked Defendant if there were any other illegal items in his room and received a negative response. After the investigating officers seized the pill bottle, in which two plastic bags containing a white substance were situated, Detective Gillis told Defendant that he believed that the bottle contained a controlled substance and asked Defendant several times if he knew what the substance was. Although he initially claimed to be ignorant of the substance's identity, Defendant eventually said, “[i]t is what you said it is.” A laboratory analysis of the contents of the pill bottle revealed the presence of two plastic bags, one of which contained approximately 21.5 grams of cocaine base and the other of which contained a mixture of rice and cocaine base weighing approximately 28.26 grams.

On 20 July 2012, the investigating officers conducted a videotaped interview of Defendant. During the interview, Detective Ackley informed Defendant that the investigating officers had seized a sufficiently large amount of controlled substances from his residence to suggest that he was selling cocaine. Although Defendant denied having sold a controlled substance, he did admit to having mixed rice with the cocaine base to eliminate the moisture contained in the cocaine base and placed the bag containing the combined substance in the pill bottle.

B. Procedural History

On 19 July 2012, a warrant for arrest was issued charging Defendant with trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing; trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by possession; and maintaining a dwelling house for the purpose of keeping and selling a controlled substance. On 4 September 2012, the Johnston County grand jury returned a bill of indictment charging Defendant with trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing; trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by possession; and maintaining a dwelling house for the purpose of keeping or selling a controlled substance. The charges against Defendant came on for trial before the trial court and a jury at the 31 July 2013 criminal session of Johnston County Superior Court. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, the trial court dismissed the charge of maintaining a dwelling house for the purpose of keeping or selling a controlled substance for insufficiency of the evidence. On 2 August 2013, the jury returned verdicts convicting Defendant of trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing and felonious possession of cocaine. At the conclusion of the ensuing sentencing hearing, the trial court consolidated Defendant's convictions for judgment and sentenced Defendant to a term of 35 to 51 months imprisonment. Defendant noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's judgment.

II. Legal Analysis

A. Jurisdiction and Indictment

In his first challenge to the trial court's judgment, Defendant contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try him and to enter judgment against him for the crime of trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing on the grounds that the indictment that purported to charge him with committing that offense was fatally defective. More specifically, Defendant contends that the trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing indictment returned against him was fatally defective on the grounds that the indictment did not adequately describe the manner in which Defendant allegedly manufactured cocaine. Defendant's argument lacks merit.

1. Standard of Review

As the Supreme Court has previously stated, “[i]t is elementary that a valid bill of indictment is essential to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try an accused for a felony.” State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 308, 283 S.E.2d 719, 729 (1981) (citations omitted). “It is well established that ‘[a]n indictment is fatally defective if it wholly fails to charge some offense ... or fails to state some essential and necessary element of the offense of which the defendant is found guilty.’ ” State v. Land, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 733 S.E.2d 588, 591 (2012) (quoting State v. Partridge, 157 N.C.App. 568, 570, 579 S.E.2d 398, 399 (2003)), disc. review denied in part, ––– N.C. ––––, 758 S.E.2d 851, affirmed in part,366 N.C. 550, 742 S.E.2d 803 (2013). “As a general rule [,] a [charging instrument] following substantially the words of the statute is sufficient when it charges the essentials of the offense in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner” unless “the statutory language fails to set forth the essentials of the offense,” in which case “the statutory language must be supplemented by other allegations which plainly, intelligibly, and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the defendant and the court as to the offense intended to be charged.” State v. Barneycastle, 61 N.C.App. 694, 697, 301 S.E.2d 711, 713 (1983) (citing State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 638–39, 239 S.E.2d 406, 410 (1977), and State v. Loesch, 237 N.C. 611, 612, 75 S.E.2d 654, 655 (1953)). A convicted criminal defendant is entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment upon which the trial court's judgment is based even if the challenge that the defendant wishes to assert on appeal was never raised in the trial court. State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 503, 528 S.E.2d 326, 341, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1018, 121 S.Ct. 581, 148 L.Ed.2d 498 (2000) (stating that, “where an indictment is alleged to be invalid on its face, thereby depriving the trial court of its [subject matter] jurisdiction, a challenge to that indictment may be made at any time, even if it was not contested in the trial court”). We “review the sufficiency of an indictment de novo.” State v. McKoy, 196 N.C.App. 650, 652, 675 S.E.2d 406, 409, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied,363 N.C. 586, 683 S.E.2d 215 (2009).

2. Validity of Manufacturing Indictment

The indictment returned against Defendant in this case alleged that Defendant had “manufacture[ed] twenty-eight (28) grams or more, but less than two hundred (200) grams of a mixture containing cocaine[.]” A person is guilty of trafficking in cocaine by manufacturing if he or she manufactures 28 grams or more of cocaine or any mixture containing cocaine. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90–95(h)(3). As a result, in order to establish a defendant's guilt of trafficking in between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing, the State...