State v. Blackwell

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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 Procedure.
NO. COA13-196
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 7 January 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Robeson County
Nos. 07 CRS 051866-67
CHANNING ALLAMAR BLACKWELL
Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 3 May 2012 by
Judge Tanya T. Wallace in Robeson County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 28 August 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General James A. Wellons, for the State.
Duncan B. McCormick, for Defendant.
DILLON, Judge.
Channing Allamar Blackwell (“Defendant”) appeals from
judgments entered 3 May 2012 convicting him of two counts of
attempted murder, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon
with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, one count of
attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and one count of
discharge of a weapon in an occupied vehicle. We find no error,
in part, and we dismiss, in part.
-2-
The evidence of record tends to show the following:
Defendant worked at a Zaxby’s restaurant location in Robeson
County with Sherry Neldon and Patsy Hardin. In the early
morning hours of 31 March 2007, Ms. Neldon, who was an assistant
manager at the restaurant, left work – accompanied by Ms. Hardin
- to make a night deposit of over $3,000 at a local bank on
behalf of her employer. Upon arriving at the bank, Ms. Neldon
exited the vehicle to make the deposit. Ms. Hardin also got out
and walked toward the back of the vehicle, at which time she saw
a tall, slim African American male approaching and yelling
expletives. Both Ms. Neldon and Ms. Hardin got back into the
vehicle, and, as Ms. Neldon struggled to get the vehicle into
gear, the man fired a gun. The first bullet shattered the
driver’s side window. The man then tried to get into the
vehicle by pointing the gun at Ms. Neldon’s head through the
window. As Ms. Neldon and the man struggled for several
seconds, she heard another three or four gunshots. Ms. Neldon
was then able to get the vehicle into gear and drive away.
One of the bullets had struck Ms. Neldon in the abdomen,
lodging in her spine, which resulted in the required removal of
part of her lower intestine. Ms. Neldon had to learn to walk
again and needed the assistance of a cane. Another bullet
-3-
struck Ms. Hardin in the back, which resulted in the required
removal of Ms. Hardin’s left kidney, part of her lower
intestine, and her spleen.
A witness saw a person fleeing the scene on foot toward a
cemetery. Officer Steve Smith responded to the scene and
approached a building near the cemetery. Officer Smith saw
Defendant “peeping around the corner” of the building.
Defendant then “took off running in the opposite direction[.]”
Officer Smith apprehended Defendant after Defendant complied
with his command to “get down.” However, even after Defendant
“got down[,] . . . he was constantly moving his hands and . . .
[h]e tried to roll back[.]” Another officer arrived at the
scene and handcuffed Defendant.
A third officer, Officer Jennifer White, arrived with a
police dog. The dog “picked up a cap and a few minutes later
she found a handgun that was buried next to the vegetation.”
The gun was discovered “[m]aybe one feet, two feet” from the
place “[D]efendant went down at [the] command” of Officer Smith.
Defendant was indicted on a number of charges and was tried
during the 30 April 2012 session of Robeson County Superior
Court, the Honorable Tanya Wallace presiding. On 3 May 2012,
the jury returned verdicts finding Defendant guilty of the six
-4-
crimes named above. The trial court entered two judgments
consistent with the jury’s verdicts. In the first judgment, the
trial court consolidated one count of attempted murder and one
count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill
inflicting serious injury with the count of attempted robbery
with a dangerous weapon, and sentenced Defendant to 220 to 273
months incarceration. In its second judgment, the trial court
consolidated the second count of attempted murder and second
count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill
inflicting serious injury with the count of discharge of a
weapon into occupied property, and sentenced Defendant to a
second term of 220 to 273 months incarceration, with both terms
to be served consecutively. From these judgments, Defendant
appeals.
I: Petition for Discharge of Imprisonment
In Defendant’s first argument on appeal, he contends the
trial court lacked jurisdiction, because Defendant’s appeal was
pending, to enter its Order of 13 July 2012 denying his Petition
for Discharge of Imprisonment (the “Petition”) which he filed
pursuant to Chapter 23, Art. 4, of the North Carolina General
Statutes. We believe this Court does not have jurisdiction to
consider the issue on appeal.
-5-
Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a) provides that “[a]ny party
entitled by law to appeal from a judgment or order of a superior
or district court rendered in a criminal action may take appeal
by . . . filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior
court and serving copies thereof upon all adverse parties . . .
.” N.C. R. App. P. 4(a). Compliance with the requirements for
entry of notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Dogwood Dev. &
Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 197-98, 657
S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008). “A jurisdictional default . . .
precludes the appellate court from acting in any manner other
than to dismiss the appeal.” Id. at 197, 657 S.E.2d at 365.
Nothing in the record before us indicates that Defendant gave
notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of the Petition.
Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of Defendant’s appeal.
II: Right to a Speedy Trial
In Defendant’s second argument on appeal, he contends
Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was denied
because there was a five year delay in bringing his case to
trial.1 We disagree.
1
Defendant also asserts that he “demanded a speedy trial
pursuant to Section 15A-711(c),” but admits that the “prosecutor
prepared at least nine applications and writs of habeas corpus
for the purpose of prosecution between August 2010 and April
2012[,]” and, therefore, “[Defendant] is asserting only a
-6-
The right of every person formally accused of crime to a
speedy and impartial trial is secured by the fundamental law of
this State, State v. Hollars, 266 N.C. 45, 145 S.E.2d 309(1965), and guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the federal
constitution, made applicable to the State by the Fourteenth
Amendment, Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 18 L. Ed. 2d
1 (1967). “[I]n considering whether the defendant has been
prejudiced because of a delay between indictment and trial, this
Court noted that a speedy trial serves (i) to prevent oppressive
pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of
the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense
will be impaired.” State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 63, 540 S.E.2d
713, 722 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 838, 151 L. Ed. 2d 54(2007).
“To determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial
has been denied, four factors must be examined: the length of
the delay, reasons for the delay, defendant’s assertion of the
right, and prejudice suffered by the defendant.” State v.
Joyce, 104 N.C. App. 558, 568, 410 S.E.2d 516, 522 (1991), cert.
denied, 331 N.C. 120, 414 S.E.2d 764 (1992). “These four
factors are considered together to determine under the
violation of his state and federal constitutional rights.”
-7-
circumstances whether a sixth amendment violation has occurred.”
Id. “[T]he length of the delay is not per se determinative of
whether the defendant has been deprived of his right to a speedy
trial.” State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. at 62, 540 S.E.2d at 721. A
long delay between accusation and trial, however, triggers
consideration of the other factors. State v. Webster, 337 N.C.
674, 678, 447 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1994). “[The] defendant has the
burden of showing that the delay was caused by the neglect or
willfulness of the prosecution.” Grooms, 353 N.C. at 62, 540
S.E.2d at 721 (2000). “A criminal defendant who has caused or
acquiesced in a delay will not be permitted to use it as a
vehicle in which to escape justice.” Id. at 63, 540 S.E.2d at
722 (2000) (quoting State v. Tindall, 294 N.C. 689, 695-96, 242
S.E.2d 806, 810 (1978)).
Defendant argues on appeal that because the “case was tried
five years after [Defendant’s] arrest . . . [t]he delay . . .
may have hindered his ability to locate witnesses who could
corroborate his testimony.” This, Defendant asserts, violated
Defendant’s right to a speedy trial. However, Defendant’s
argument on appeal fails to assert, in any way, how “the delay
was caused by the neglect or willfulness of the prosecution.”
Grooms, 353 N.C. at 62, 540 S.E.2d at 721. Moreover, the record
-8-
tends to show the opposite may have been, at least partially,
true. In this case, the State sought continuances due to a full
docket, an unavailable witness, and a coinciding week-long first
degree murder case; Defendant sought or agreed to continuances
because counsel was unavailable or needed to review the case
file. Defendant also sought a continuance because replacement
counsel needed additional time to prepare. The record in this
case does not affirmatively show that the delay was due to the
neglect or willfulness of the prosecution; rather, several
continuances benefitted defense counsel. Because Defendant has
failed to meet his burden of showing that “the delay was caused
by the neglect or willfulness of the prosecution[,]” Grooms, 353
N.C. at 62, 540 S.E.2d at 721, we find Defendant’s argument
without merit.
III: Right to Self-Representation
In Defendant’s third argument on appeal, he contends the
trial court erred by failing to allow Defendant to proceed pro
se. We disagree.
“It is well settled that an accused is entitled to the
assistance of counsel at every critical stage of the criminal
process as constitutionally required under the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” State
-9-
v. Taylor, 354 N.C. 28, 35, 550 S.E.2d 141, 147 (2001), cert.
denied, 535 U.S. 934, 122 S. Ct. 1312, 152 L. Ed. 2d 221 (2002).
“[W]aiver of the right to counsel and election to proceed pro
se[,]” however, “must be expressed clearly and unequivocally.”
State v. Thomas, 331 N.C. 671, 673, 417 S.E.2d 473, 475 (1992)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). “Once a defendant
clearly and unequivocally states that he wants to proceed pro
se, the trial court, to satisfy constitutional standards, must
determine whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waives the right to in-court representation by
counsel.” Id. at 673, 417 S.E.2d at 476. “In order to
determine whether the waiver meets that standard, the trial
court must conduct a thorough inquiry[,] [and] [t]his Court has
held that the inquiry required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 satisfies
constitutional requirements.” Id.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 (2011) provides the following:
A defendant may be permitted at his election
to proceed in the trial of his case without
the assistance of counsel only after the
trial judge makes thorough inquiry and is
satisfied that the defendant:
(1) Has been clearly advised of his right
to the assistance of counsel, including
his right to the assignment of counsel
when he is so entitled;
(2) Understands and appreciates the
-10-
consequences of this decision; and
(3) Comprehends the nature of the charges
and proceedings and the range of
permissible punishments.
Id.
In this case, Defendant filed a pro se handwritten document
on 19 January 2011 “seeking to file for a motion for dismissal.”
The trial court responded, stating the following: “According to
our records you are represented by an attorney. Please discuss
your concerns with your attorney. You must act through your
attorney when filing court documents.” Almost a year later,
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and, purportedly, a
concurrent motion to waive counsel,2 in which Defendant stated
that he “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently proceeds pro
se.” The trial court responded on 5 March 2012, again stating
the following: “According to our court records you are
represented by an attorney. Please discuss your concerns with
your attorney. You must act through your attorney when filing
court documents.”
2
Defense counsel states in his brief that “[u]ndersigned counsel
went to Robeson County to review the Clerk’s file twice . . .
for the specific purpose of determining whether a separate,
concurrently filed motion was in the file, and counsel could not
locate one.”
-11-
At trial, Defendant did not express a desire to proceed pro
se, and the trial court did not conduct an inquiry. Despite
repeated inquiries from the trial court as to whether there were
any other matters before the jury came in, neither Defendant nor
his court-appointed counsel informed the trial court that
Defendant desired to waive in-court representation by counsel so
that Defendant could proceed pro se. “Only if a defendant
clearly expresses his desire to have counsel removed and to
proceed pro se is the trial court obligated to make further
inquiry pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 to determine if
defendant understands the consequences of his decision and
voluntarily and intelligently wishes to waive his right to the
representation of counsel.” State v. Johnson, 341 N.C. 104,
111, 459 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1995) (citation omitted). We believe
the facts of this case – because there is no motion to waive
counsel, only a reference to one, and because there was no
mention at trial of Defendant’s desire to proceed pro se – do
not support the proposition that Defendant clearly expressed his
desire to have counsel removed and to proceed pro se. As such,
the trial court had no obligation to make further inquiry
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242. This argument is
without merit.
-12-
IV: Motion to Dismiss; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In Defendant’s next arguments, he contends the trial court
erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges of attempted
murder and assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill
inflicting serious injury. Defendant admits that defense
counsel failed to renew Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the
close of all evidence, but nonetheless argues the denial of
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was error, and further contends
that defense counsel’s failure to renew the motion was
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our appellate rules provide that, “if a defendant fails to
move to dismiss the action or for judgment as in case of nonsuit
at the close of all the evidence, he may not challenge on appeal
the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the crime charged.”
N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(3). Because Defendant presented his own
evidence and failed to renew his motion to dismiss at the close
of all evidence, Defendant waived his right to contest this
issue on appeal. Id. The portion of Defendant’s appeal
pertaining to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss
is, resultantly, dismissed. See State v. Blackmon, 208 N.C.
App. 397, 400, 702 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2010); State v. Tanner, 193
-13-
N.C. App. 150, 666 S.E.2d 845 (2008), rev'd on other grounds,
364 N.C. 229, 695 S.E.2d 97 (2010).
Defendant also asserts that defense counsel’s failure to
renew the motion to dismiss at the end of all evidence
constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, a defendant must first show that his counsel’s
performance was deficient and then that counsel’s deficient
performance prejudiced his defense.” State v. Allen, 360 N.C.
297, 316, 626 S.E.2d 271, 286, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 867, 166
L. Ed. 2d 116 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
“Deficient performance may be established by showing that
counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness.” Id. “Generally, to establish prejudice, a
defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Id. “A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence
in the outcome.” Id.“[I]f a reviewing court can determine at the outset that
there is no reasonable probability that in the absence of
counsel’s alleged errors the result of the proceeding would have
-14-
been different, then the court need not determine whether
counsel’s performance was actually deficient.” State v.
Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 563, 324 S.E.2d 241, 249 (1985). The
issue in this case, therefore, turns on whether there was a
reasonable probability the trial court would have ruled in
Defendant’s favor had defense counsel renewed the motion to
dismiss at the conclusion of all evidence. We believe there was
not.
“This Court reviews the trial court’s denial of a motion to
dismiss de novo.” State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650
S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). “Upon defendant’s motion for dismissal,
the question for the Court is whether there is substantial
evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged,
or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant’s
being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is
properly denied.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526
S.E.2d 451, 455, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L. Ed. 2d 150(2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith,
300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980).
Circumstantial evidence may withstand a
motion to dismiss and support a conviction
-15-
even when the evidence does not rule out
every hypothesis of innocence. If the
evidence presented is circumstantial, the
court must consider whether a reasonable
inference of defendant’s guilt may be drawn
from the circumstances. Once the court
decides that a reasonable inference of
defendant’s guilt may be drawn from the
circumstances, then it is for the jury to
decide whether the facts, taken singly or in
combination, satisfy [it] beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is
actually guilty.
Fritsch, 351 N.C. at 379, 526 S.E.2d at 455 (citation and
quotation marks omitted). “In making its determination, the
trial court must consider all evidence admitted, whether
competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the
State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable
inference and resolving any contradictions in its favor.” State
v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994), cert.
denied, 515 U.S. 1135, 132 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1995).
i: Attempted Murder
Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his
motion to dismiss the charges of attempted murder because there
was neither insufficient evidence to support the element of
premeditation and deliberation nor the element of intent to
kill. We address each argument in turn.
-16-
“The elements of attempted first-degree murder are: (1) a
specific intent to kill another; (2) an overt act calculated to
carry out that intent, which goes beyond mere preparation; (3)
malice, premeditation, and deliberation accompanying the act;
and (4) failure to complete the intended killing.” State v.
Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 579, 599 S.E.2d 515, 534 (2004); see also
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17 (2011).
a: Premeditation and Deliberation
Defendant first argues there was insufficient evidence to
support the element of premeditation and deliberation. “In the
context of attempted first-degree murder, circumstances that may
tend to prove premeditation and deliberation include, among
others: (1) lack of provocation by the intended victim or
victims; and (2) conduct and statements of the defendant both
before and after the attempted killing.” State v. Reid, 175
N.C. App. 613, 619, 625 S.E.2d 575, 582 (2006). “Premeditation
and deliberation, both processes of the mind, must generally be
proven by circumstantial evidence.” State v. Smith, 357 N.C.
604, 616, 588 S.E.2d 453, 461 (2003), cert. denied, __ U.S. __,
159 L. Ed. 2d 819, 124 S. Ct. 2915 (2004); see also State v.
Cozart, 131 N.C. App. 199, 202, 505 S.E.2d 906, 909 (1998)
(stating that “[i]n the context of attempted first-degree
-17-
murder, circumstances that may tend to prove premeditation and
deliberation include: (1) lack of provocation by the intended
victim or victims; (2) conduct and statements of the defendant
both before and after the attempted killing; (3) threats made
against the intended victim or victims by the defendant; and (4)
ill will or previous difficulty between the defendant and the
intended victim or victims”). “The nature and number of the
victim’s wounds is . . . a circumstance from which an inference
of premeditation and deliberation can be drawn.” State v.
Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 161, 322 S.E.2d 370, 388 (1984).
“Premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the
multiple shots fired by defendant.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C.
328, 376, 611 S.E.2d 794, 828 (2005). “[A] defendant’s attempt
to cover up his participation in the shooting by hiding the
[gun] is evidence from which premeditation and deliberation may
be inferred.” Id. at 376, 611 S.E.2d at 829.
In this case, the evidence of record tends to show that
Defendant worked with Ms. Neldon and Ms. Hardin at Zaxby’s and
knew when and where the night deposit was made. Evidence does
not show that there was any ill will among Ms. Neldon, Ms.
Hardin and Defendant prior to the shooting. Evidence further
shows that Defendant was waiting in the bank parking lot after
-18-
1:00 A.M. with a gun on the night of the shooting; that
Defendant reached through the shattered vehicle window to shoot
Ms. Neldon at point blank range; and that Defendant fired four
shots at Ms. Neldon and Ms. Hardin. Defendant attempted to hide
his gun in the grass when he was arrested. We believe the
evidence supporting the element of premeditation and
deliberation in this case was substantial, such that the
question of whether Defendant committed attempted first degree
murder was properly one for the jury. We believe the evidence
was such that the jury could have inferred from the
circumstances that Defendant fired shots in a cool state of
blood, planning to take the bank deposit. See Chapman, 359 N.C.
at 377, 611 S.E.2d at 829.
b: Specific Intent to Kill
Defendant next argues there was insufficient evidence to
support the element of specific intent to kill.
Intent to kill is an element of both the crime of attempted
first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent
to kill inflicting serious injury. See Cozart, 131 N.C. App. at
202, 505 S.E.2d at 909. “The requisite ‘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
-19-
circumstances.” State v. Musselwhite, 59 N.C. App. 477, 480,
297 S.E.2d 181, 184 (1982). In this case, we reiterate that
Defendant reached through the shattered vehicle window to shoot
Ms. Neldon at point blank range; and that Defendant fired four
shots at Ms. Neldon and Ms. Hardin. One bullet struck Ms.
Neldon in the abdomen, lodging in her spine, which resulted in
the required removal of part of Ms. Neldon’s lower intestine by
doctors. Another bullet struck Ms. Hardin in the back, which
resulted in the required removal of Ms. Hardin’s left kidney,
part of her lower intestine, and her spleen. We believe this
evidence supporting the element of intent to kill was
substantial, such that the question of whether Defendant
committed attempted first degree murder was properly one for the
jury. See State v. Cain, 79 N.C. App. 35, 47, 338 S.E.2d 898,
905, disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 380, 342 S.E.2d 899 (1986)
(stating that “[t]he requisite ‘intent to kill’ can be
reasonably inferred by the defendant’s use of a .357 magnum
revolver, fired numerous times”); see also State v. Maddox, 159
N.C. App. 127, 131, 583 S.E.2d 601, 604 (2003).
ii: Assault With Deadly Weapon With Intent to Kill Inflicting
Serious Injury
Defendant also argues the trial court erred by denying his
motion to dismiss the charges of assault with a deadly weapon
-20-
with intent to kill inflicting serious injury because there was
insufficient evidence to support the element of intent to kill.
We disagree.
“The elements of assault with a deadly weapon with intent
to kill inflicting serious injury are: (1) an assault, (2) with
the use of a deadly weapon, (3) with an intent to kill, and (4)
inflicting serious injury, not resulting in death.” State v.
Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 579, 599 S.E.2d 515, 534 (2004); see also
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32(a) (2011). Intent to kill is an element
of both the crime of attempted first degree murder and assault
with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious
injury. See Cozart, 131 N.C. App. at 202, 505 S.E.2d at 909(1998).
Defendant again argues there was insufficient evidence to
support the element of specific intent to kill. For the reasons
discussed previously concerning whether there was substantial
evidence to support the element of intent to kill in the context
of attempted first degree murder, we disagree.
Based on the evidence, we believe there was no reasonable
probability the trial court would have granted Defendant’s
motion to dismiss had he made one at the end of all evidence.
-21-
Therefore, Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim
must necessarily fail.
NO ERROR in part; DISMISSED in part.
Judge BRYANT and Judge STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).