State v. Walton
| Decision Date | 20 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. COA20-211,COA20-211 |
| Citation | 857 S.E.2d 753 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Cameron Diamond Dejuan WALTON |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General T. Hill Davis, III, for the State.
Helton, Cody & Associates, Hickory, by Blair E. Cody, III, for defendant.
¶ 1 Cameron Diamond Dejuan Walton ("defendant") appeals from judgment entered 8 October 2019 following his guilty plea to felony trafficking in opium. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress and dismiss and in denying his request to make an offer of proof. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 2 On 13 December 2018, a Burke County grand jury indicted defendant for trafficking in opium or heroin by possession; possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine; carrying a concealed weapon; and possession of a controlled substance on prison/jail premises. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence supporting his indictment on 12 August 2019. On 30 August 2019, defendant filed an amended motion to suppress, and on 2 October 2019 defendant filed a "Motion to Dismiss/Suppress."
¶ 3 Defendant's motions were heard at the 7 October 2019 criminal session of Burke County Superior Court. The relevant facts from the suppression hearing are as follows.
¶ 4 On 5 April 2018, Officer Jesse Simmons ("Officer Simmons") of the Valdese Police Department observed a gold four-door Lexus traveling at an estimated 45 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone shortly after midnight. Officer Simmons verified the speed with a radar gun and upon following the vehicle observed that he could not see inside the vehicle's windows. Officer Simmons initiated a traffic stop in a nearby parking lot.
¶ 5 Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Simmons noted that defendant was the driver and sole occupant and informed defendant that he had been stopped for speeding and window tint. Officer Simmons observed that the windows were not illegally tinted but were instead darkened by electric window shades. While speaking with defendant, Officer Simmons noticed "a slight odor of marijuana coming from the car[,]" that seemed "covered up with some kind of cologne." At the hearing, Officer Simmons testified that he had received training in the detection of marijuana by scent.
¶ 6 After the initial conversation, Officer Simmons returned to his car to begin checking the status of defendant's driver's license and to determine whether defendant had any warrants. Officer Simmons also called Deputy Tim Branch ("Deputy Branch") of the Burke County Sheriff's Office to bring his K-9 unit to perform a drug sniff of defendant's vehicle. Officer Tyler Angley ("Officer Angley") of the Valdese Police Department was also dispatched to serve as a cover officer during the stop.
¶ 7 Officer Simmons returned to defendant's vehicle to perform a field sobriety test on the basis of defendant's speeding and erratic turn into the parking lot. Officer Simmons noted that the scent of cologne had faded and the odor of marijuana had grown stronger. After defendant got out of his car, Officer Simmons administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus ("HGN") field sobriety test and observed no sign of impairment. While administering the test, Officer Simmons informed defendant that he "smelled marijuana coming from the car[,]" which defendant denied.
¶ 8 Officer Simmons asked defendant to return to his vehicle, and Officer Simmons returned to his car to issue a written warning for speeding and unsafe movement. While Officer Simmons was in his car writing the warning ticket, Deputy Branch arrived on the scene with his dog and performed a sniff search of defendant's vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of narcotics in defendant's vehicle.
¶ 9 After Deputy Branch informed Officer Simmons that the dog had alerted on defendant's car, Officer Simmons returned to defendant's vehicle and asked "if there was anything he would like to tell me about in the vehicle." Defendant said no. Officer Simmons asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, but defendant refused; when Officer Simmons opened the car door and repeated his request, defendant shut and locked the door and "placed his hands on the gear shifter as if he was going to put the car into gear." Officer Simmons requested backup and drew his taser, advising defendant that he would be tased if he did not exit the vehicle. Defendant then exited the vehicle.
¶ 10 Officer Simmons asked defendant if there was anything in the vehicle. Defendant stated that there was a gun under the seat. Officer Simmons entered the vehicle to retrieve the gun, and in a subsequent search found cocaine, digital scales, synthetic opioids, and $1,483.00 in cash.
¶ 11 The time elapsed between the initial stop and defendant's refusal to exit his vehicle was sixteen minutes. The time elapsed between the initial stop and the arrival of the police dog was twelve minutes. The police dog and his handler were at the scene for a total of eight minutes, and the dog took less than one minute to perform the sniff.
¶ 12 At the hearing, the State introduced evidence regarding the training and reliability of the police dog. Deputy Branch testified that the dog was certified for narcotics detection by both the United States Law Enforcement Canine Association and the North American Police Working Dog Association.
¶ 13 Defendant's trial counsel offered the testimony of Officer Angley, the cover officer at the scene, and Toni Bartlett ("Bartlett"), whose home defendant had left just prior to being stopped. This testimony was offered to provide evidence of the relationship between Officer Angley and Bartlett's daughter, but most of the evidence was excluded by the trial court. Defendant was allowed to make an offer of proof with a limited scope not to include proof related to any relationship between Officer Angley and Bartlett's daughter.
¶ 14 At the conclusion of the hearing on 8 October 2019, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge of felony trafficking in opium or heroin by possession with the remaining charges dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 to 29 months imprisonment, suspended on the condition that defendant serve 30 months of supervised probation, as well as an intermediate sanction of 7 months imprisonment.
¶ 15 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress and to dismiss, in denying defendant's request to make an offer of proof during the pretrial motion to suppress, and in finding that the police dog was proficient in detecting drugs.
¶ 16 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress and to dismiss because there was an improper prolonging of the stop, and the stop was made without probable cause or reasonable and articulable suspicion. We disagree.
¶ 17 " ‘The standard of review in evaluating the denial of a motion to suppress is whether competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law.’ " State v. Jackson , 368 N.C. 75, 78, 772 S.E.2d 847, 849 (2015) (quoting State v. Otto , 366 N.C. 134, 136, 726 S.E.2d 824, 827 (2012) ). A trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting. State v. Campbell , 188 N.C. App. 701, 704, 656 S.E.2d 721, 724 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "[O]nly a material conflict in the evidence—one that potentially affects the outcome of the suppression motion—must be resolved by explicit factual findings that show the basis for the trial court's ruling." State v. Bartlett , 368 N.C. 309, 312, 776 S.E.2d 672, 674 (2015) (citations omitted).
¶ 18 If there is no material conflict in the evidence, this Court may review the undisputed factual record when determining whether the trial court's ruling was correct. State v. Lovin , 339 N.C. 695, 706, 454 S.E.2d 229, 235 (1995). "If there is no conflict in the evidence on a fact, failure to find that fact is not error[,]" and the finding is implied by the ruling of the court. State v. Richmond , 215 N.C. App. 475, 479, 715 S.E.2d 581, 585 (2011) (citation omitted).
¶ 19 A traffic stop is a seizure even if the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention is brief. State v. Styles , 362 N.C. 412, 414, 665 S.E.2d 438, 439 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The necessary standard for stops based on traffic violations is "based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts, as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, cautious officer, guided by his experience and training." State v. Watkins , 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994) (citing Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-80, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 906 (1968) ). To determine whether reasonable suspicion exists, courts must look to the totality of the circumstances as viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer. State v. Johnson , 370 N.C. 32, 34-35, 803 S.E.2d 137, 139 (2017) (citations omitted). The reasonable suspicion standard applies to all traffic stops for traffic violations "whether the traffic violation was readily observed or merely suspected." Styles , 362 N.C. at 415, 665 S.E.2d at 440. This standard is less demanding than probable cause, and "requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 414, 665 S.E.2d at 439 (citation omitted). The standard is satisfied if an officer reasonably believes that a driver has violated the law. Johnson , 370 N.C. at 38, 803 S.E.2d at 141.
¶ 20 In this case, there was competent evidence to support the trial court's determination that Officer Simmons...
To continue reading
Request your trial