State v. Wright

• Decision Date: 17 May 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-247
• Citation: 871 S.E.2d 879 (Table)
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Wayne WRIGHT, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

871 S.E.2d 879 (Table)

STATE of North Carolina

v.Eric Wayne WRIGHT, Defendant.

No. COA21-247

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 17, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Associate Attorney General Brian M. Miller, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katy Dickinson-Schultz, for defendant-appellant.

STROUD, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant appeals the order denying his motions to suppress and judgment entered upon his Alford plea for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, carrying a concealed gun, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a stolen firearm, and attaining the status of habitual felon.¹ Because the findings of fact and conclusions of law did not clearly address all of the material, factual basis for reasonable suspicion, trespassing on City of Charlotte property, we are unable to properly review defendant's arguments, so we vacate and remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. Background

¶ 2 Defendant was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon, possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, possession of a firearm by a felon, felonious possession of a stolen firearm, and attaining the status of habitual felon. On 21 September 2021, defendant filed a motion "to suppress any and all physical evidence seized from Defendant by the police as such evidence was obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure of Defendant's person." Defendant contended,

The search of Defendant's person lacked probable cause and the seizure of his persona lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the resulting physical evidence is the tainted fruit of the initial illegality. The exclusion of evidence of the search and any evidence obtained therefore is required by N.C.G.S., Section 15A-974 et seq. as said evidence was obtained in substantial violation of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, as well as by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 19 and 20 of the Constitution of North Carolina.

¶ 3 Thereafter, on 29 October 2020, defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement because defendant did not receive sufficient Miranda warnings.

¶ 4 In November 2020, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motions to suppress. The trial court found:

1. That on January 29, 2020, [O]fficer[ ] Christopher Martin received information from confidential informant (CI) that the defendant, Eric Wright, was armed with a firearm and had just gotten out of prison.

2. That the CI gave Officer Martin the defendant's location, the 100 block of Phifer Street, described the Defendant as a black male with dreads in a black jacket, blue jeans, and orange shoes riding a bicycle.

3. That Officer Martin and Officer Slauter testified they observed Defendant enter a pathway marked by a "No Trespassing sign" leading from North Tryon to N. College Street. The "No Trespassing" signs were posted underneath the overpass next to the pathway.

4. That Officer Martin and Officer Slauter had a combined ten (10) years of experience in that area and knew it to be an area for street level drug transactions.

5. That both officers knew the individuals in that area including those who were homeless and that Officer Slauter in conversation with Defendant identified some of those individuals by real name or street name [sic].

6. That Officer Martin made contact with Defendant on North College Street while wearing uniform and driving unmarked patrol SUV. That there were no police lights flashing.

7. That the Officers requested the Defendant's identification and Defendant provided them with an ID card.

8. That it was cold on January 29, 2020 and Defendant had on[ ] a heavy jacket and multiple layers of clothing.

9. That Officer Martin asked Defendant for permission to pat him down. Defendant consented to the pat down and upon Officer Martin's request he got off his bicycle, removed his backpack and unzipped his jacket.

10. That Officer Martin frisked Defendant including underneath the outer jacket.

11. That Defendant told Officer Martin and Officer Slauter he was scared of them but did not say why he was afraid.

12. That in their conversation with Defendant, officers did not raise their voice or brandish a firearm.

13. That Officer Martin appeared to have retuned Defendant's identification card based on the conversation between them and the actions that were visible on the BWC.

14. That Officer Martin asked Defendant multiple times to allow him to search his backpack.

15. That Defendant initially said yes but then later refused multiple times.

16. That Officer Slauter then asked Defendant to open the backpack himself and he would look inside.

17. That Defendant consented and opened his backpack.

18. That Officer Slauter asked Defendant to lower the backpack a few times stating he (the officer) was short.

19. Th[at] Officer Slauter saw a grip of a Ruger pistol and stated 94, police code for firearm.

20. The Defendant was immediately detained in handcuffs.

21. That Defendant was informed that he was under arrest for carrying concealed gun.

22. That the Officers told Defendant that they would need to confirm if the gun was stolen.

23. That the Officers did not question Defendant once he was in custody.

24. That Defendant's subsequent statements once in custody were made, in what appeared to be, an effort to be cooperative.

25. That Defendant voluntarily and freely told Officer Slauter that he had "hard" (cocaine) in his pocket when Officer Slauter told him he was going to search him.

26. That Officers attempted to discourage Defendant from making statements prior to being Mirandized while in custody.

27. That Defendant was properly [M]irandized by Officer Martin prior to being interviewed at the Law Enforcement Center.

28. That Defendant spoke knowingly, freely and voluntarily after being Mirandized.

The trial court concluded,

2. That the information provided by the confidential informant combined with the officers’ knowledge of the area was sufficient as to provide reasonable and articulable suspicion and probable cause for the Officers to engage with the Defendant.

3. That the Officers initial contact with Defendant was a voluntary contact as they did not make any showing force or intimidation.

4. That while Defendant, a black male interacting with [a] white officer, made statements about being afraid of police, he did not articulate any reason for that fear. And while studies have shown that individuals of the black race do not feel they have the freedom to deny consent, this subjective view along with race generally is not a deciding factor.

5. That it was reasonable for Officers to request the defendant to come off his bike, take of[f] his backpack and unzip his jacket in order to perform a frisk and the frisk of the Defendant did not exceed its scope.

6. That Defendant was always free to leave during the interaction prior to being detained in handcuffs.

7. That Defendant freely consented to opening his backpack and therefore allowed for the legal search of his property.

8. That Defendant's statements once detained were made freely and voluntarily and not subjected to interrogation by the officers.

9. That Defendant's statements post[-]Miranda were therefore not tainted by Defendant's prior statements pre-Miranda.

¶ 5 The trial court ultimately determined,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements pursuant to the United States Constitution, the Constitution of North Carolina and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), alleging that evidence was obtained as a result of constitutional violations, specifically that the officers did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion nor probable cause to stop the Defendant, that the Defendant was subjected to an illegal search and seizure and that the Defendant was interrogated without Miranda warnings while in custody, shall be DENIED.

¶ 6 Ultimately, defendant, pursuant to an Alford plea, pled guilty to the charges against him. The trial court entered judgment. Defendant appeals.

II. Unlawful Seizure

¶ 7 Defendant raises one argument on appeal contending "[t]he trial court erred by denying ... [his] motion to suppress because the evidence and statements were obtained after ... [he] was unlawfully seized." Within defendant's argument he raises four separate issues challenging: (1) two of the findings of fact, (2) the trial court's conclusions on what a reasonable person would believe about the encounter, (3) the reasonable suspicions of law enforcement, and ultimately, (4) the trial court's decision to deny his motions to suppress.

A. Standard of Review

It is well established that the standard of review to determine whether a trial court properly denied a motion to suppress is whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the evidence and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. Additionally, findings of fact to which defendant failed to assign error are binding on appeal.

Although assignments of error are no longer required under North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a), in order to challenge a finding of fact as unsupported by the evidence, the appellant must make this argument in his brief. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (stating that the scope of review on appeal is limited to issues so presented in the several briefs. Issues not presented and discussed in a party's brief are deemed abandoned.).

State v. Richmond , 215 N.C. App. 475, 477, 715 S.E.2d 581, 583 (2011) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

B. Findings of Fact

¶ 8 Defendant challenges two findings of fact as unsupported by the competent evidence.

1. Trespass Sign

¶ 9 Defendant contends finding of fact 3 is not supported by the competent evidence. Finding of fact 3 provides, "That Officer Martin and Officer Slauter testified they observed Defendant enter a pathway marked by a "No...