STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
Guilford County
No. 00 CRS 83135
DEREK LYNN HENDRICKS
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jeffrey B. Parsons, Assistant
Attorney General, for the State.
Ames C. Chamberlin for defendant-appellant.
THOMAS, Judge.
Defendant, Derek Lynn Hendricks, appeals a conviction of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He contends his
Miranda rights were violated and, therefore, the trial court erred
in denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons herein, we find
no error.
The evidence of what occurred in the Greensboro Police
Department's interrogation room is contested.
The State's evidence tends to show the following: On 15 March
2000, Greensboro Police Department Detectives D.R. Russ and K.A.
Davis from the Greensboro Police Department were called to the
scene of an armed robbery at Grady's American Grill (Grady's).
Within a short time, other police officers had arrested defendantas a possible suspect in the robbery. They found a .22-caliber
pistol in the room where defendant had been staying at the nearby
Red Roof Inn. Defendant was taken to the Greensboro Police
Department with Russ and Davis following.
The interrogation room measured six by eight feet, was
windowless, and had a two-way mirror. The room was guarded but
defendant was allowed access to a nearby restroom. He was also
provided juice to drink.
Initially, defendant told Russ and Davis that his name was
Tony Saunders. Davis searched for the name, without success, in a
computer database that keeps track of persons arrested in Guilford
County. Russ and Davis then went back to Grady's and interviewed
witnesses to the robbery. Those witnesses were not able to
identify defendant, with the manager of the restaurant saying that
defendant did not appear to be the robber.
The officers returned to the department after having been gone
approximately one hour and resumed the interrogation of defendant.
During the interview, but before the detectives learned defendant's
real name, defendant mentioned that Jack Hatfield had been his
attorney. He did not ask to call him or ask for another attorney,
however.
Russ continued questioning defendant, who then said his name
was Nation Lynch. Davis searched the database and located a
photograph under that name. He also ran a Federal Bureau of
Investigation criminal history search. Davis discovered that
Nation Lynch was an alias for Derek Hendricks, defendant's realname, and that defendant was a convicted felon. Upon learning
defendant's true identity, Russ read him his Miranda rights from a
Greensboro Police Department form. Russ checked off each right as
defendant indicated positively that he understood it. Defendant
then signed the line under the “Statement of Rights” portion of the
form, indicating that he understood his rights. He refused,
however, to sign the lower portion of the form, titled “Waiver of
Rights.” Next to the line titled, “Time,” Russ wrote “1319” (1:19
p.m.). The Miranda rights were read to defendant more than four
hours after he had been taken into custody, although almost all of
those hours had been spent trying to establish his identity.
After defendant refused to sign a waiver of his Miranda
rights, he was asked if he would continue talking with the police.
Defendant replied that he would. Russ then questioned him about
the .22-caliber pistol, with defendant admitting that he owned it.
He had earlier denied possession.
Defendant's evidence, meanwhile, tends to show the following:
The detectives asked defendant who his attorney was, and he
replied, “Jack Hatfield.” The officers became verbally abusive,
and then left him for awhile before returning to continue the
interrogation. The officers called him a liar and said he “screwed
up” by not making a statement. Defendant responded to questioning
about the pistol by stating, “Since you want me to say the gun is
mine, the gun is mine.” He testified that he made the statement
acknowledging possession of the pistol before he was advised of his
Miranda rights. Defendant did admit to providing police with twofalse names regarding his identity. Finally, defendant testified
that Russ reviewed the Miranda Rights form with him, but not until
approximately 5:00 p.m.
Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to a term of
nineteen to twenty-three months in prison.
By his sole assignment of error, defendant contends the trial
court erroneously failed to suppress his statement admitting
possession of the pistol. The confession, he argues, was obtained
in violation of his constitutional rights. We disagree.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, our
examination is limited to determining whether the trial court's
findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether
those factual findings in turn support legally correct conclusions
of law. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619
(1982).
Conflict in testimony ordinarily raises a question of
credibility of the witnesses, which is for determination by the
trial court. State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42, 48, 185 S.E.2d 123,
127 (1971).
No evidence obtained from a suspect during a custodial
interrogation may be used against him unless the interrogation was
preceded by appropriate warnings regarding his Miranda rights,
which include the right to have counsel present. Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 726 (1966). Miranda
rights may be waived, provided the waiver is made knowingly,intelligently, and voluntarily. Id. Defendant argues there is
insufficient evidence that he waived his right to counsel and,
therefore, his admission regarding the gun must be suppressed. He
also maintains that the evidence is in conflict regarding whether
he was advised of his Miranda rights prior to admitting possession
of the firearm.
Russ, meanwhile, testified that defendant “rambled” at times
during the interview and it was during some of the rambling when
defendant mentioned the name Jack Hatfield. He said if defendant
had requested an attorney, he would have had to end the interview.
Further, Russ claimed to have read aloud defendant's Miranda
rights. He said he placed a check mark by each right as defendant
indicated he understood it. Defendant then signed the portion of
the form setting forth the rights, two of which read:
3. You have a right to talk with a lawyer and
to have a lawyer present with you while you
are being questioned.
4. If you want a lawyer but are unable to
afford one, a lawyer will be appointed to
represent you before any questioning if you
wish.
Finally, Russ testified that after defendant said he understood his
Miranda rights, Russ asked him if he wanted to continue to talk
with the officers. Defendant said he would talk to them.
Defendant then admitted that the pistol found in his hotel room
was his. Davis's testimony corroborated Russ's.
As is required, the trial court determined the weight of the
evidence and credibility of the witnesses. See Blackmon, 280 N.C.
at 48, 185 S.E.2d at 127. It found that: (1) the testimony ofdefendant is not believable and, although it is not to be
discounted, it is not to be given much weight; (2) defendant did
not request an attorney, but he did disclose the name of an
attorney, Jack Hatfield; (3) after properly being advised of his
constitutional rights, defendant freely, knowingly, and
intelligently waived his rights; and (4) defendant's statement
concerning possession of the .22-caliber revolver was made freely,
voluntarily, and understandingly.
The competent evidence in this case sufficiently supports the
trial court's findings of fact. Further, those findings support
legally correct conclusions of law.
Accordingly, we find no error.
NO ERROR.
Judges MARTIN and TYSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***