NO. COA02-1461

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Guilford County
                                Nos. 01 CRS 3090, 3092, 4483
MARK ANTHONY ROSSI,
    Defendant.
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 June 2002 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 June 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Brent D. Kiziah, for the State.

    Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant.

    TYSON, Judge.

I. Background    

    On 1 April 2001, police arrested Mark Anthony Rossi (“defendant”) following a break-in at a business. Defendant submitted an affidavit of indigency to the trial court on 2 April 2001 in which he listed a bank account of $130.00, a monthly income of $1280.00 from his employment and monthly expenses of $275.00. After finding that defendant was financially able to provide the necessary expenses for his legal representation, a district court judge denied his petition to proceed as an indigent and set his bond at $10,000.00.    On 13 August 2001, the Guilford County grand jury indicted defendant on charges of breaking or entering a motor vehicle and felonious larceny. The grand jury on 10 September 2001 also indicted him for possession of a firearm by a felon, felonious breaking or entering, and felonious larceny. On 24 September 2001, Judge William Z. Wood, Jr. found defendant was not financially able to provide the necessary expenses for his legal representation and appointed counsel to represent him.
    Defendant filed a motion on 10 June 2002 to suppress “confessions or admissions . . . which may have been made on either April 2, 2001 or April 4, 2001.” The trial court conducted a voir dire on defendant's motion to suppress during trial on 11 June 2002. Officer George Parker Howey, IV testified defendant signed a rights waiver on 2 April 2001. Defendant later called from the jail on 4 April 2001 and requested to speak with a police officer. Defendant signed another rights waiver and made a note on the form that he had “[c]alled to help myself April 4, 2001.” Officer Howey testified that defendant told him that the trial court had not assigned him a court-appointed attorney during his first appearance because he made too much money. Defendant told officers about property which they had found in his backpack at the time of his arrest and about where he had gotten the property.
    At the conclusion of the voir dire, the trial court found defendant had “waived his right to counsel . . . . [and] made a statement, in the totality of the circumstances, that was voluntary.” A jury subsequently found defendant to be guilty ofthe charges. After arresting judgment in case number 01 CRS 3091, because the same stolen item was referenced in 01 CRS 3094, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences having a combined term of forty-six to fifty-six months imprisonment. From the trial court's judgments, defendant appeals.

II. Issue

    Defendant contends the trial court erred when it found he was not indigent at his first appearance and therefore not entitled to appointed counsel.

III. Failure to Appoint Counsel

    Defendant argues his affidavit shows he did not have sufficient funds at that time to retain counsel to advise him. Defendant's argument is not persuasive. “In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make . . . .” N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (2002). Defendant here did not present the issue in his motion to suppress of whether the trial court erred by denying him appointed counsel at his first appearance. He has failed to preserve the question for appellate review. The record reveals that defendant had a monthly income of $1280.00 along with $130.00 in a bank account when he filed his affidavit of indigency. Two days after his first appearance, defendant told an officer that he had not been assigned a court- appointed attorney because he made too much money. A careful review of the record discloses no question of sufficient import toinvoke this Court's authority to suspend the appellate rules pursuant to Rule 2. We decline to address this assignment of error on the merits.

IV. Failure to Assign Error

    Defendant failed to set out his remaining assignment of error in his brief. Because he has neither cited any authority nor stated any reason or argument in support of that assignment of error, it is deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5) (2002).

    We find no error in defendant's trial or sentence. Defendant failed to preserve his objection and abandoned his remaining assignment of error.
    No error.
    Judges WYNN and STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***