STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Iredell County
Nos. 99 CRS 17467,
SAMMY DEAN BILLINGS 99 CRS 22743
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Grady L. Balentine, Jr., for the State.
The Law Firm of Charles L. Alston, Jr. by Charles L. Alston,
Jr. for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Defendant Sammy Dean Billings was charged with felonious
breaking and entering, larceny and attaining the status of habitual
felon. The State's evidence tended to show that on the afternoon
of 29 September 1999, Charles French (French) was asleep at home
after having worked the third shift for Freightliner Corporation.
A knock at his door awakened French. He looked out his window and
saw a blue Ford Ranger truck. French "thought it was just a
salesman," so he rolled back over in bed. He then heard the truck
start up and drive through his yard. When his dogs started
barking, French went to his back door and looked outside.
French saw two men taking items out of his utility buildingand loading them onto the blue truck. French retrieved his
shotgun, pointed it at defendant and commanded the two men to
unload everything they had taken. French testified that the
building had been padlocked and that the building contained a
"couple thousand dollars worth of tools." He further testified
that the approximate value of the property which had been removed
before he confronted the men was in excess of $1,000. Once his
possessions were unloaded, French had the two men raise the truck
tailgate so he could see the tag number. French then ordered
defendant to accompany him to the back door of the house so he
could call for help. While French called "911" on the speaker
phone, defendant's accomplice started up the truck and defendant
ran. French testified that he did not give consent to defendant or
the accomplice to take property from his utility building.
Defendant did not present any evidence. A jury found
defendant guilty of felonious breaking and/or entering and
felonious larceny after breaking and/or entering. Defendant
admitted to attaining the status of habitual felon. The trial
court sentenced defendant to 120 to 153 months imprisonment.
Defendant 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 is substantial
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 mightaccept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Patterson,
335 N.C. 437, 449-50, 439 S.E.2d 578, 585 (1994). In ruling on a
motion to dismiss, the trial court must consider all of the
evidence 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).
To prevail on the charge of breaking or entering against
defendant in this case, the State must present substantial evidence
of the breaking or entering of any building with the intent to
commit any felony or larceny therein. State v. White, 84 N.C. App.
299, 301, 352 S.E.2d 261, 262, cert. denied, 321 N.C. 123, 361
S.E.2d 603 (1987). Larceny is the taking of another's property,
and carrying it away without the owner's consent, and with the
intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. State v.
Boykin, 78 N.C. App. 572, 576, 337 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1985).
Defendant only argues there was insufficient evidence presented to
identify defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Here, the victim testified that he saw two men loading his
property located in a padlocked building onto a blue truck. The
victim further testified that he pointed his shotgun at defendant
when he confronted the two men and that he ordered defendant to
accompany him to the back door of his house. On cross-examination,the victim testified that he observed the defendant for
approximately the five minutes it took defendant and his accomplice
to unload the items from the truck. In the light most favorable to
the State, this evidence is sufficient to submit the question of
whether defendant was one of the perpetrators of the crimes to the
jury. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant's
motion to dismiss.
No error.
Judges MARTIN and HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***