An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-1633
            
                                          &nb sp; 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
        

Filed: 2 August 2005


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Buncombe County
                                No. 03 CRS 62374
PAMELA YVONNE JAMES                        04 CRS 2740
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 10 March 2004 by Judge E. Penn Dameron in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 July 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General William P. Hart and Assistant Attorney General Spurgeon Fields, III, for the State.

    Thorsen Law Offices, by Haakon Thorsen for defendant- appellant.

    LEVINSON, Judge.

    Pamela Yvonne James (defendant) appeals from her conviction of attempt to obtain property by false pretenses and assault on a government official/employee. For the reasons that follow, we find no error.
    The State's evidence at trial tended to show the following: On 25 September 2003 Kimberly Price (Price), was working as supervisor of the cashiers at the Tunnel Road K-Mart. K-Mart cashiers are trained to use a counterfeit detection pen on all bills $20 and higher to determine if the bills are genuine or counterfeit. When defendant attempted to purchase a purse and a carton of cigarettes with two $20 bills, the cashier tested the bills as trained anddetermined the bills were counterfeit. The cashier brought the counterfeit money to the attention of Price, who in turn, called for the store's assistant manager, Janice Coxe (Coxe).
    After Coxe observed that the two $20 bills were indeed counterfeit, she took defendant to the service desk. While waiting for the police to arrive, Coxe questioned defendant about the counterfeit $20 bills and defendant told her that she obtained “the money from the bank.” When the police arrived at the store, defendant was yelling and screaming. The police observed a strong order of alcohol emitting from defendant's person. The police asked defendant why she used the $20 bills and defendant responded that “she received [the $20 bills] from her landlord.”
    A jury found defendant guilty of attempting to obtain property by false pretense. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to assault on a government official/employee. The trial court consolidated the charges, sentenced defendant to a minimum of eleven months and a maximum of fourteen months imprisonment. The trial court suspended defendant's sentence and placed her on supervised probation for thirty-six months. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant first contends the trial court erred by not granting her motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of the evidence. Defendant alleges that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show defendant's representation was calculated and that she intended to deceive. We disagree.
     The standard for ruling on a motion to dismiss "is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of theoffense 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) (citing State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 236, 400 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1991)). 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).
     N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-100(a) defines obtaining property by false pretenses and provides, in pertinent part:
        knowingly and designedly by means of any kind of false pretense . . . obtain or attempt to obtain from any person within this State any money, . . . property, . . . or other thing of value with intent to cheat or defraud any person. . . .

N.C.G.S. § 14-100(a)(2003). Our Supreme Court has interpreted G.S. § 14-100(a) as consisting of the following elements: “'(1) a false representation of a subsisting fact or a future fulfillment or event, (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive, (3) which does in fact deceive, and (4) by which one person obtains or attempts to obtain value from another.'” State v. Parker, 354 N.C. 268, 284, 553 S.E.2d 885, 897 (2001) (quoting State v. Cronin, 299 N.C. 229, 242, 262 S.E.2d 277, 286 (1980)).
    The State presented evidence that: (1) defendant presented two $20 bills to buy a purse and cigarettes; (2) the two $20 billstested as counterfeit; and (3) defendant told the K-Mart assistant manager that she obtained the bills from the bank, but told the police who arrived at the scene that she received the bills from her landlord. In considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a jury could draw a reasonable inference that defendant attempted to purchase merchandise with counterfeit money and had the requisite intent to deceive the store. Thus, we hold the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss and we overrule this assignment of error.
    Defendant next contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of attempting to obtain property by false pretenses. The court instructed the jury that the elements of attempting to obtain property by false pretenses were:
        First, that the Defendant made a representation to another. Second, that this representation was false. Third, that this representation was calculated and intended to deceive. Fourth, that the Defendant was in fact deceived by misrepresentation. And fifth, that the Defendant thereby attempted to obtain property. (emphasis added).

After a discussion was held off the record, the trial court informed the jurors that it may have misstated the elements of the crime. The court then instructed the jury that the elements were:
        First, that the Defendant made a representation to another. Second, that this representation was false. Third, that the representation was calculated and intended to deceive. Fourth, that the victim was, in fact, deceived by the representation. And fifth, that the Defendant thereby attempted to obtain property from the victim.
    While defendant admits that this instruction is consistentwith North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions on obtaining property by false pretense, defendant argues the trial court's instruction did not require the State to prove she had the necessary intent. Defendant failed to object to the jury instruction at trial. Accordingly, to prevail on appeal, defendant must show that the trial court's instruction constituted plain error. N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(2) and (c)(4). Plain error arises when the error is “'so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]'” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)(quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir. 1982)).
     Here, the trial court's jury instruction is consistent with the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction on obtaining property by false pretense, which comports with our Supreme Court's interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 14-100. Accordingly, defendant has failed to show that the trial court committed plain error in its instructions and this assignment of error is overruled.
    This opinion is without prejudice to defendant filing a motion for appropriate relief regarding her ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
    No error.
    Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***