Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA10-360 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 December 2010

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Camden County Nos. 09CRS000014; 08CRS050222-23 RICKY BARTLETT Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 29 July 2009 by Judge J. Richard Parker in Camden County Superior Court. the Court of Appeals 28 September 2010. Heard in

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General G. Mark Teague, for the State. M. Alexander Charns, for Defendant.

BEASLEY, Judge.

On appeal Defendant argues that because the indictment for the offense of felony speeding to elude arrest was facially invalid, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the felony offense. However, because the body of the indictment sufficiently

notified Defendant of the charge against him, we conclude that there is no error.

-2On 30 July 2008, Defendant, Ricky Bartlett, was employed at a local farm in Camden County, North Carolina. While driving his

employer's truck home for lunch, Defendant was stopped and arrested for operating a motor vehicle while his license was revoked. After being released on bond, Defendant retrieved the vehicle from the site of his initial arrest, and decided to return it to his employer by driving the short distance to his employer's farm. Shortly after Defendant began his return trip, Detective Robeson, witnessed Defendant driving his employer's truck. Detective

Robeson confirmed that Defendant's license was indeed revoked and activated the blue lights to alert Defendant to pullover. Despite

passing several locations where he could safely pull the vehicle off the road, Defendant simply signaled by waving his left arm outside the window of the truck and continued to drive. A chase

ensued and Detective Robeson radioed for assistance and was joined in the pursuit by additional law enforcement officers. Shortly after joining the pursuit, Deputy Forbes attempted to slow Defendant's progression by positioning his vehicle in front of Defendant's. In an apparent effort to elude capture, Defendant

left the road and drove through a cemetery and the yard of a local residence before returning to the roadway. At trial, Deputy Forbes testified that during the chase, Defendant swerved his vehicle, suddenly causing Deputy Forbes to maneuver his vehicle to the

-3shoulder of the road to avoid a collision. Detective Robeson also

testified that twice during the pursuit, Defendant jerked the truck to the left, once causing Detective Robeson to drive through a ditch. Major Monitoring the chase by radio transmission, Chief Deputy Worthington of the Camden County Sheriff's Department

positioned himself in front of Defendant and attempted to deflate Defendant's tires with the use of "stop sticks" on two separate occasions. Each time Defendant maneuvered around the stop sticks Defendant arrived at his employer's farm,

and continued driving.

departed from the vehicle, and was promptly placed under arrest by pursuing officers. Defendant was convicted of his initial driving with a revoked license charge on 31 October 2008. On the same day, Defendant gave

notice of his intent to appeal the conviction to Superior Court. Once in Superior Court, Defendant's conviction for driving with a revoked license was joined with indictments for felony speeding to elude arrest, five counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a government official, and habitual felon status. Following the

State's evidence at trial, the trial court granted motions to dismiss two of Defendant's assault charges. Later, the jury Defendant

acquitted Defendant of the remaining assault charges.

was convicted of felonious fleeing to elude arrest, driving with a revoked license, and habitual felon status. Defendant appeals from

-4his convictions arguing that: (I) the felonious speeding to elude arrest indictment was facially defective, divesting the trial court of jurisdiction; (II) the trial court erroneously failed to grant his motion to dismiss made at trial; and (III) the trial court's jury instructions for the offense of reckless driving were plainly erroneous. I. Defendant first argues that the speeding to elude arrest indictment was "defective in that it did not allege the manner in which the accused's driving was reckless and didn't cite the reckless driving statute." We disagree.

Without a valid bill of indictment, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to try an accused for a felony offense. Snyder, 343 N.C. 61, 65, 468 S.E.2d 221, 224 (1996). See State v. An indictment

is sufficient "if it express[es] the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner[.]"

Download 10-360-8.pdf

South Carolina Law