State v. Rayfield

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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
A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e .
NO. COA13-549
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 4 February 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Gaston County
Nos. 10 CRS 57185-86
11 CRS 12488-517
DOUGLAS DALTON RAYFIELD, II
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 8 September 2011 by
Judge Jesse B. Caldwell, III, and order entered 13 February 2012
and judgments entered 13 February 2012 by Judge H. William
Constangy in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 21 November 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Sherri Horner Lawrence, for the State.
Mark Montgomery for Defendant.
STEPHENS, Judge.
This appeal arises from the same events as those upon which
a previous appeal by Defendant Douglas Dalton Rayfield, II was
-2-
based, and its resolution is controlled by this Court’s 7
January 2014 opinion finding no error in that matter. In June
2010 and October 2011, Defendant was indicted on numerous counts
of sexual offenses against a minor and sexual exploitation of a
minor, as well as one count of possession of a firearm by a
felon. Evidence relevant to those charges had been discovered,
in part, following the execution of a search warrant at
Defendant’s home in May 2010. The charges against Defendant
were tried in two sets.
In May 2011, in the first set of charges, Defendant moved
to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of his
home, contending that the warrant should not have been issued.
That motion was denied on 8 September 2011. Following a trial
on the first set of charges in Gaston County Superior Court, in
January 2012, a jury found Defendant guilty of multiple counts
of sexual acts against a minor. Defendant gave notice of appeal
in open court.
In the second set of charges, Defendant filed a second
motion to suppress, raising the same issues as presented in his
May 2011 motion. By order entered 13 February 2012, the trial
court denied that motion, noting that Defendant was barred from
re-litigating the issues decided in the 8 September 2011 order
-3-
denying the first motion to suppress. In February 2012, the
second set of charges against Defendant came on for trial.
Defendant thereupon entered an Alford plea to thirty-one counts
of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of possession of
a firearm by a felon, reserving his right to appeal from the
February 2012 denial of his second motion to suppress.
In the appeal from his January 2012 convictions, Defendant
argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his
first motion to suppress. In an opinion filed 7 January 2014, a
panel of this Court rejected Defendant’s arguments, concluding
that the search warrant was properly issued and that the trial
court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress
evidence seized as a result of the warrant’s execution. See
State v. Rayfield, __ N.C. App. __, __ S.E.2d __ (2014).
In this appeal from the judgments entered upon his Alford
plea to the second set of charges, Defendant presents a single
issue: that the trial court erred in denying his first motion
to suppress. A previous panel of this Court having considered
and rejected Defendant’s arguments on this issue, that matter is
res judicata in this appeal. See King v. Grindstaff, 284 N.C.
348, 359, 200 S.E.2d 799, 807 (1973) (“When an issue has been
directly tried and decided, it cannot be contested again between
-4-
the same parties or their privies in the same or any other
court.”) (citation omitted).
NO ERROR.
Judges GEER and ERVIN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).