STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Moore County
Nos. 97 CRS 9469
97 CRS 9470
JAMES DAVID CUMMINGS
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann
Stone, for the State.
Matthew Rothbeind, for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
James David Cummings (defendant) pled guilty to trafficking
in cocaine by possession and maintaining a vehicle for the keeping
of controlled substances on 13 April 1999. For trafficking, the
court sentenced defendant to an active term of thirty-five to
forty-two months. For maintaining a vehicle, the court imposed a
suspended sentence. Defendant gave notice of appeal in a timely
fashion but his appointed appellate counsel failed to perfect the
appeal. On 29 March 2001 the trial court entered an order
discharging appellate counsel and appointing new counsel. This
Court allowed defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari on 27
June 2001.
The evidence at the plea hearing tends to show that anundercover officer arranged to purchase cocaine from defendant on
4 September 1997. After receiving $2,300 in marked and recorded
bills from the undercover officer at a location near Vass in Moore
County, defendant drove to a location near Biscoe in Montgomery
County, while under surveillance the entire time. Defendant
returned and gave the officer in excess of 55 grams in cocaine.
Defendant attempted to flee and elude arrest. After the officers
arrested him, he identified his source as Thomas. Law
enforcement officers subsequently searched the location where
defendant obtained the cocaine and found the marked bills given by
the undercover officer to defendant, in addition to a large
quantity of cocaine. The officers arrested the person from whom
defendant obtained the cocaine.
Defendant's sole contention is that the court erred by failing
to find pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(5) (1999) that
defendant rendered substantial assistance in the identification,
arrest or conviction of any accomplices, accessories, co-
conspirators or principals. The decision whether to find
substantial assistance has been rendered is discretionary with the
trial court. State v. Wells, 104 N.C. App. 274, 276, 410 S.E.2d
393, 394 (1991). Even when the court makes a finding of
substantial assistance, the sentencing decision is within the
court's discretion. State v. Willis, 92 N.C. App. 494, 498, 374
S.E.2d 613, 616 (1988), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 341, 378
S.E.2d 808 (1989). A discretionary sentencing decision will not
be disturbed unless it is shown that the court's decision was soarbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned
decision. State v. Hayes, 314 N.C. 460, 473, 334 S.E.2d 741, 749
(1985).
We find no abuse of discretion. The evidence shows that other
officers conducting surveillance followed defendant to the location
where defendant obtained his contraband. Defendant did not
identify his source until after he had been confronted with the
evidence against him, and defendant did not give the source's full
name. Defendant attempted to flee or elude arrest prior to his
arrest. Defendant's source was a fugitive at the time of
defendant's trial. We affirm the judgments.
Affirmed.
Judges GREENE and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***