STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Harnett County
Nos. 00 CRS 4153,
WILLIE J. SCURLOCK 00 CRS 10294
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Jason T. Campbell, for the State.
Richard E. Jester for defendant-appellant.
WALKER, Judge.
Defendant was indicted with felonious breaking and entering,
felonious larceny, and felonious possession of stolen goods. By a
separate bill of indictment, defendant was also charged with
attaining the status of habitual felon. The evidence tended to
show that, during the early morning hours of 3 May 2000, Lillington
Police Officer Edward Fleming discovered that a brick cinder block
had been thrown through the front glass window of the CVS Pharmacy
in Lillington, North Carolina. Loose cartons of cigarettes were
scattered on a shelf behind the shattered window and packs of
cigarettes were lying on the sidewalk in front of the store. Thestore manager subsequently confirmed that cartons of cigarettes
were missing from the display case.
Meanwhile, William Brewer was approached by defendant, who was
riding a bicycle in the parking lot of a Quick Stop store located
approximately a mile and one half from the CVS Pharmacy. Defendant
tried to sell Brewer several packs of cigarettes contained inside
a folded bed sheet, which was tied to the bicycle handlebars.
Brewer, who was suspicious of defendant, called the police and
tried to stall defendant until the police arrived. Defendant
eventually sold Brewer a CVS Pharmacy bag containing loose packs
of cigarettes for $10. Brewer testified that before he bought the
cigarettes, defendant told him the cigarettes were stolen.
Afterwards defendant rode his bicycle to the Food Lion
shopping center across the street and returned to the Quick Stop
parking lot. Defendant then rode his bicycle behind the Quick Stop
and back to Brewer's truck. When defendant returned, he did not
have the bundle of cigarettes on his bicycle.
Law enforcement officers from the Lillington Police Department
and the Harnett County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene
and took defendant into custody. Officers located a bicycle track
in a path running behind the Quick Stop and a sheet wrapped around
packs of cigarettes beside the path. The cigarette packs were
later identified as part of CVS Pharmacy inventory. The officers
also took custody of the CVS Pharmacy bag containing cigarettes
which Brewer had purchased from defendant. A jury found defendant guilty of felonious possession of
stolen goods and of attaining the status of habitual felon.
Defendant's habitual felon status was established by virtue of the
following prior convictions: (1) 12 August 1993 conviction for
felony breaking and entering in Harnett County Case No. 93 CRS
2730, occurring on or about 23 March 1993; (2) 9 September 1998
conviction for felony common law robbery in Harnett County Case No.
97 CRS 13229, occurring on or about 22 October 1997; and (3) 18 May
1999 conviction for felony possession of stolen property in Harnett
County Case No. 99 CRS 0007, occurring on or about 31 December
1998.
The trial court calculated that defendant had eight prior
record level points based on eight prior Class 1 misdemeanor
convictions and one prior record level point pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1340.14(b)(6), because all of the elements of the
present offense are included in the prior offense, for a total of
nine prior record level points. The trial court determined
defendant was a Class C felon with a prior record level IV and
imposed a minimum sentence of 133 months and a maximum sentence of
169 months in prison. Defendant appeals.
Defendant first contends the trial court erred by determining
he had a prior record level IV, based on nine prior record level
points. Defendant argues the trial court should not have awarded
him an additional prior record level point when it considered that
all the elements of the present offense are included in a prior
offense because the conviction was also used to establish hishabitual felon status. He argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.6
requires that these prior felonies not be used in any way.
We addressed this same issue in State v. Bethea, 122 N.C. App.
623, 471 S.E.2d 430 (1996). In Bethea, the defendant argued that
the trial court erred in determining his prior record level when it
considered that all the elements of the present offense are
included in a prior offense, which had been used to establish
defendant's habitual felon status. Defendant specifically argued
that calculating the prior record level in this manner is contrary
to [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 14-7.6. Id. at 625, 471 S.E.2d at 431.
After construing N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1340.14 and 14-7.6, this
Court held that the trial court did not err in determining
defendant's prior record level under the Structured Sentencing Act
when it assigned defendant one point because the offense for which
he was being sentenced contained the same elements as the prior
offense, which had been used in establishing his status as an
habitual felon. Id. at 627-28, 471 S.E.2d at 432-33.
Defendant concedes that he had been convicted of felonious
possession of stolen property on 18 May 1999 and that this
conviction can be used to access the one point under Bethea. He,
nevertheless, asks this Court to reconsider its holding in Bethea.
We are bound by the holding of Bethea. [A] panel of the Court of
Appeals is bound by a prior decision of another panel of the same
court addressing the same question, but in a different case, unless
overturned by an intervening decision from a higher court. In the
Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d30, 37 (1989). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not
err in determining that all of the elements of the present offense
were present in a prior offense and added one point pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(b)(6) to defendant's structured
sentencing calculation.
Defendant next contends the trial court erred in entering a
judgment in file number 00 CRS 10294, in which no crime was
alleged. Specifically, defendant argues he was improperly
sentenced for the crime of being an habitual felon and received no
sentence for the underlying felony of possession of stolen goods
because the case number in the upper right-hand corner of his
judgment and commitment form corresponds with the habitual felon
case number.
We are not persuaded by defendant's argument. The record
clearly shows defendant was sentenced for being an habitual felon,
while committing the crime of felonious possession of stolen goods.
Defendant's judgment and commitment form signed 2 July 2001 shows
that defendant was found guilty by a jury of being an habitual
felon in file number 00 CRS 010294 and possession of stolen goods
in file number 00 CRS 004153. The judgment and commitment form
also shows defendant was sentenced as a Class C felon due to his
habitual felon status. Defendant's assignment of error is
overruled.
Defendant finally contends the trial court erred by denying
his motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of the evidence. The
standard for ruling on a motion to dismiss "is whether there issubstantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense
charged and (2) that defendant is the perpetrator of the offense."
State v. Lynch, 327 N.C. 210, 215, 393 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1990).
Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v.
Patterson, 335 N.C. 437, 449-50, 439 S.E.2d 578, 585 (1994). When
ruling on a motion to dismiss, all of the evidence should be
considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State
is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from
the evidence. State v. Davis, 130 N.C. App. 675, 679, 505 S.E.2d
138, 141 (1998). Any contradictions or discrepancies arising from
the evidence are properly left for the jury to resolve and do not
warrant dismissal. State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 36, 468 S.E.2d
232, 237 (1996). Defendant was charged with possession of stolen
property pursuant to a breaking and entering in violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-72(c). To sustain the conviction of felonious
possession under section 14-72(c), the State must establish the
following elements: (1) possession of personal property; (2) which
has been stolen pursuant to a burglary; (3) the possessor knowing
or having reasonable grounds to believe the property to have been
stolen pursuant to a burglary; and (4) the possessor acting with a
dishonest purpose. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-72(c)(2001); see also
State v. Brown, 81 N.C. App. 622, 627, 344 S.E.2d 817, 820, disc.
rev. denied, 318 N.C. 509, 349 S.E.2d 867 (1986).
Here, the evidence showed that defendant had a sheet filled
with packs of cigarettes. Brewer bought a CVS Pharmacy bagcontaining loose cigarettes from defendant, who stated at that time
that the cigarettes were stolen. The store manager confirmed the
packs of cigarettes were from CVS's inventory. In the light most
favorable to the State, this constitutes sufficient evidence to
adequately support the conclusion that defendant possessed stolen
goods. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant's
motion to dismiss.
We note that the judgment entered in this case states that
defendant was convicted of possession of stolen goods under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-71.1 and not under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-72(c) as he
was charged. We remand the case to the Harnett County Superior
Court for a correction of the judgment even though both offenses
are Class H felonies.
No error in the trial.
Remand for correction of judgment.
Judges THOMAS and BIGGS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***