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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA12-409 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 November 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMELLE MONQUE BEST Johnston County Nos. 10 CRS 4597, 10 CRS 53739, 10 CRS 53744-48

Appeal by Defendant from order dated 14 October 2011 by Judge James Gregory Bell, and judgment entered 24 October 2011 by Judge A. Robinson Hassell, in Superior Court, Johnston

County.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 October 2012.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General J. Aldean ("Dean") Webster III, for the State. Ryan McKaig for Defendant. McGEE, Judge. Jamelle Monque Best (Defendant) pleaded guilty on 24

October 2011 to possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of cocaine, maintaining a dwelling for the sale or use of

controlled substances, and attaining the status of an habitual felon. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of

-2imprisonment from 77 months to 102 months. Defendant appeals

the trial court's judgment, as well as the trial court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. I. Issue on Appeal and Standard of Review Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his "motion to suppress the evidence against him on the ground that the search warrant and affidavit were fatally defective." This

Court's review of a trial court's order denying a motion to suppress is "'strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on

appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge's ultimate conclusions of law.'" 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. "The trial court's State

(1982).

conclusions of law . . . are fully reviewable on appeal." v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 208, 539 S.E.2d 625, 631 (2000). II. Analysis

Detective C.W. Kilpatrick (Det. Kilpatrick) of the Clayton Police Department filed an application for a search warrant on 15 June 2010 to search Defendant's residence. Det. Kilpatrick

also filed an affidavit in support of a search warrant (the affidavit), based largely on information provided by a fifteenyear-old girl who will be referred to herein as "the juvenile."

-3The juvenile told Det. Kilpatrick that she "would hang out at [Defendant's] marijuana, residence" and and that Defendant The would give told her Det.

cocaine,

alcohol.

juvenile

Kilpatrick that on two occasions she and Defendant had sexual intercourse at Defendant's residence. The juvenile also told

Det. Kilpatrick that, while at Defendant's residence, she had observed Defendant with a handgun. Det. Kilpatrick knew that

Defendant was a felon and that he was thereby prohibited from possessing a handgun. Det. Kilpatrick was issued a search warrant that he

executed and that eventually led to Defendant's arrest and to the charges the on in this matter. Defendant filed to a motion the to

suppress warrant,

evidence, the grounds

discovered that,

pursuant alia,

search was no The

inter

there

indication that

the juvenile

was reliable or credible.

trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress in an order entered 14 October 2011. Defendant challenges the following findings of fact in the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress: 18. Defendant argues that the standards applicable to determining the reliability of paid police informers should apply to the [juvenile]; however, the United States Supreme Court in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 26 L.Ed. 2d 419 (1970) declined to apply the same standards used for paid police informants to information obtained

-4from witnesses and victims. 19. That the information that was put in the search warrant in this case was provided by the [juvenile], a fifteen year old who admitted to having sexual intercourse with the thirty-nine year old defendant in MayJune 2010. . . . . 21. That Det. Kilpatrick testified that prior to giving her statement to him on June 14, 2010, that Det. Kilpatrick had not made any promises or concessions to the [juvenile] for any statements that she made. 21.[sic] That the [c]ourt finds that these admissions by the [juvenile] carry their own indicia of credibility and are sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to search in this case. See United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 29 L.Ed 2d 723 (1971). 22. That there was a substantial basis for the trial court's determination that probable cause existed for the search warrant in that the information contained in the search warrant came from the [juvenile] who was named. That the [juvenile] stated that she was fifteen years of age and that she had sex with . . . [D]efendant who was thirty-nine years old at the time. That the [juvenile] stated that . . . [D]efendant had provided her with marijuana, cocaine and alcohol when she was at . . . [D]efendant's home. That the [juvenile] stated that the last time she had marijuana was at . . . [D]efendant's house and that it was June 4, 2010 through June 5, 2010. That the [juvenile] stated that . . . [D]efendant had possession of a handgun and that he would keep it in the door of his car and then take the gun into the house with him when he got out of the car.

-523. That the information contained in the search warrant showed that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at . . . [D]efendant's residence located at 600 North O'Neal Street, Apartment 3A. N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 12-409.pdf

South Carolina Law