An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA02-919

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 4 March 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Guilford County
                                No. 00 CRS 45369
KEITH HOWELL
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 16 November 2000 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 February 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Sylvia Thibaut, for the State.

    Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr. for defendant-appellant.

    TYSON, Judge.

    Keith Howell (“defendant”) appeals his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. We find no error.

I. Background

    The State's evidence tended to show the following: On 6 August 2000, Antonio Heath was standing on Lee Street near Douglas Park in Greensboro with his friend, Dominique. Heath saw defendant running down Douglas Street, pursued by several men. As defendant entered his house, Heath and Dominique walked to the end of the park to find out what had happened. Defendant emerged from his house minutes later with a handgun and fired it into the air. Hewalked up to Heath and Dominique and fired into the air a second time, saying “he was tired of everybody jumping on him and tired of everybody doing stuff to him[.]” After exchanging words with Dominique, who left the area in a car, defendant returned to his house. A few minutes later, defendant came back outside, walked up to Heath, and shot him in his right side. As Heath turned to run, defendant shot him in the shoulder. Defendant followed Heath, shooting him two additional times in the arm and back. Defendant called out, “Come here. I'm going to kill you,” as he chased Heath. Heath ran to Pearson Street, where a friend drove him to a nearby store and called the police.
II. Issue

    The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss, alleging insufficient evidence of intent to kill.
III. Intent to Kill

A defendant's intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the assault, the manner in which it was made, the conduct of the parties, and other relevant circumstances. State v. James, 321 N.C. 676, 688, 365 S.E.2d 579, 586 (1988) (citing State v. Thacker, 281 N.C. 447, 189 S.E.2d 145 (1972)). Here, defendant came out of his house carrying a gun, walked up to Heath, and shot him four times. Defendant also announced his intention to kill Heath. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, see State v. Neal, 109 N.C. App. 684, 686, 428 S.E.2d 287, 289 (1993), these facts give rise to a reasonable inference that defendant intended to killHeath. See State v. Washington, 142 N.C. App. 657, 661, 544 S.E.2d 249, 252, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 532, 550 S.E.2d 165 (2001); State v. Peoples, 141 N.C. App. 115, 118, 539 S.E.2d 25, 28 (2000); State v. Evans, 120 N.C. App. 752, 757, 463 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1995), cert. denied, 343 N.C. 310, 471 S.E.2d 78 (1996). This assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion

    The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence of intent to kill. Defendant does not address his remaining assignments of error in his brief and they are deemed abandoned. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2002).
    No error.
    Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***