State v. Pressley ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                  NO. COA13-1248
    NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed:   19 August 2014
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
    v.                                   Rowan County
    No. 12 CRS 55671
    ANTHONY PRESSLEY
    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 June 2013 by
    Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in Rowan County Superior Court.               Heard
    in the Court of Appeals 6 March 2014.
    Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Hal F. Askins, Special
    Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
    Gilda C. Rodriguez for defendant-appellant.
    DAVIS, Judge.
    Anthony     Pressley     (“Defendant”)     appeals    from   judgments
    entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of
    failure to register as a sex offender pursuant to 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11
    , based on his listing of a false address on
    forms    submitted   to    law   enforcement   officers    following     his
    release from prison.       Defendant argues on appeal that the trial
    court (1) erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the
    State’s failure to show that one of the forms containing false
    -2-
    information was actually required by law to be submitted; (2)
    committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding
    the statutorily designated intervals at which such forms must be
    submitted; and (3) erred in denying his motion to dismiss based
    on   his    contention   that    he    was       charged    twice    for   the   same
    offense.      After    careful    review,        we   conclude      that   Defendant
    received a fair trial free from error.
    Factual Background
    The    State’s   evidence       at    trial     tended   to   establish     the
    following facts:       Defendant was previously found guilty in Rowan
    County Superior Court of taking indecent liberties with a child.
    He was sentenced to a term of 19-23 months imprisonment and was
    released from prison on 23 April 2012.                     Pursuant to 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.7
    , Defendant – as a convicted sex offender – was
    required to provide, upon his release from prison, a signed form
    to the sheriff of his county of residence containing,                            inter
    alia, the following information:
    The person's full name, each alias, date of
    birth, sex, race, height, weight, eye color,
    hair color, drivers license number, and home
    address.
    
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.7
    (b)(1) (2013) (emphasis added).
    Upon his release from prison on 23 April 2012, Defendant
    registered with the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office, listing his
    -3-
    residence       on     the    form        as    364     Culbertson      Estate’s     Drive,
    Woodleaf, North Carolina, which was the address of his mother’s
    home.     On 4 June 2012, at the written direction of the State
    Bureau     of        Investigation,            Defendant       signed      an    additional
    verification of information form, continuing to list this same
    address.
    On 3 July 2012, David Allen (“Chief Allen”), the Chief of
    Police     for       the     Town        of    Cleveland,       North      Carolina,     was
    investigating an unrelated case and came to the 364 Culbertson
    Estate’s Drive residence to interview Defendant.                                Chief Allen
    spoke    with        Joseph        Nathan       Rankin        (“Rankin”),       Defendant’s
    stepfather, who informed him that Defendant did not live there.
    On 23 July 2012, Chief Allen again spoke with Rankin, who
    provided a written statement that Defendant (1) did not live at
    364 Culbertson Estate’s Drive; (2) had used that address on the
    forms because he “needed an address to provide”; and (3) “ha[d]
    only    spent    the       night    at    [the]       house   one   time    since   he   was
    released from prison.”                   Rankin later clarified that Defendant
    had stayed with him and Defendant’s mother at the residence for
    two days between 23 April 2012, the date of his release from
    prison, and 23 July 2012, the date of Rankin’s statement.
    -4-
    Chief Allen also spoke with James Alonzo Lewis, who signed
    a statement indicating that Defendant had lived with him at 106
    Crowder Street in Cleveland, North Carolina “for about three
    months” after his release from prison but subsequently left the
    residence after a dispute over bills.        In addition, Chief Allen
    talked with Latisha Vaughan, who provided a written statement
    attesting to the fact that Defendant “started staying at [her]
    apartment near the end of May 2012” and moved out in August of
    2012.
    On 29 October 2012, Defendant was indicted on two counts of
    failure to register as a sex offender pursuant to 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11
     with regard to the signed forms he submitted
    on 23 April 2012 and on 4 June 2012.         A jury trial was held on
    11 June 2013 in Rowan County Superior Court.        The jury convicted
    Defendant on both counts, and the trial court entered judgments
    upon    the   jury   verdicts.   Defendant    was   sentenced    to   two
    consecutive sentences of 23-37 months imprisonment.             Defendant
    gave notice of appeal in open court.
    Analysis
    I.     Denial of Motion to Dismiss Based on State’s Failure to
    Prove That Submission of 4 June 2012 Verification Form Was
    Required by Statute
    -5-
    The trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed
    de novo on appeal.               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    (citations         and     quotations        omitted),     cert.
    denied, 
    531 U.S. 890
    , 
    148 L. Ed. 2d 150
     (2000).
    Defendant initially contends that the trial court erred in
    denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to prove
    that     the    4     June    2012    verification          form     he     submitted     was
    “required” by statute.              We disagree.
    Defendant was charged with violating 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14
    -
    208.11,       which    is    a     part    of     North    Carolina’s        Sex   Offender
    Registration Act (“the Act”), codified at 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14
    -
    208.5    et    seq.         
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A       provides     that,
    beginning on the date of his initial registration and every six
    months thereafter, a person required to register under the Act
    must submit a verification form to the sheriff of his county of
    residence within three business days of receiving it.                              The form
    -6-
    must be signed and must indicate, among other things, “[w]hether
    the person still resides at the address last reported to the
    sheriff.     If the person has a different address, then the person
    shall indicate that fact and the new address.”                 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A (2013).         The statute Defendant was charged with
    violating,    
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11
    ,    further   states,     in
    pertinent part, that:
    A person required by this Article to
    register who willfully does any of the
    following is guilty of a Class F felony:
    . . . .
    (4) Forges or submits under false pretenses
    the information or verification notices
    required under this Article.
    
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11
    (a)(4) (2013).
    Defendant does not argue that the address he listed on the
    23 April 2012 and 4 June 2012 forms was correct.                    Rather, he
    contends   that   the   4   June    2012    form   was   not   required   to   be
    submitted under 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A because, under that
    statute, verification forms must only be submitted every six
    months subsequent to the date of the initial registration form.
    Defendant’s argument, while novel, lacks merit.                  The clear
    and unambiguous purpose of the Act is
    to assist law enforcement agencies' efforts
    to protect communities by requiring persons
    -7-
    who are convicted of sex offenses or of
    certain other offenses committed against
    minors to register with law enforcement
    agencies,   to   require   the   exchange  of
    relevant information about those offenders
    among law enforcement agencies, and to
    authorize   the   access  to   necessary  and
    relevant information about those offenders
    to others as provided in this Article.
    
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.5
     (2013).
    As a part of this statutory scheme, 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14
    -
    208.9A   is    intended   to    ensure   that    law   enforcement     officers
    possess complete and accurate information as to the addresses of
    convicted sex offenders living in North Carolina.                   This intent
    is reinforced by 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A(b), which provides,
    in relevant part, as follows:
    Additional Verification May Be Required.--
    During the period that an offender is
    required   to   be   registered   under   this
    Article,   the   sheriff   is  authorized   to
    attempt   to   verify    that   the   offender
    continues to reside at the address last
    registered by the offender.
    
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A(b).
    The only rational reading of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11
     is
    that   it     criminalizes     the   provision    of   false   or    misleading
    information on forms submitted pursuant to the Act – regardless
    of when these forms are submitted.               The schedule of deadlines
    set out in 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A is simply designed to
    -8-
    provide    a    reliable     timetable     for        the   filing   of    verification
    forms.     The inclusion of this schedule in 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14
    -
    208.9A does not excuse the provision of false information on
    verification       forms       submitted         on     other     dates.            Indeed,
    Defendant’s argument, if accepted, would permit the submission
    of false or misleading information to law enforcement agencies
    on    forms     submitted     at    time   intervals         different       than    those
    explicitly      set    out   in    the   statute.           We   decline     to   adopt    a
    construction of the statute that would both thwart the express
    intent of the General Assembly and fly in the face of common
    sense.     See State v. Jones, 
    359 N.C. 832
    , 837, 
    616 S.E.2d 496
    ,
    499    (2005)     (holding        that   “[i]n        construing     statutes       courts
    normally       adopt   an    interpretation       which      will    avoid    absurd      or
    bizarre consequences, the presumption being that the legislature
    acted in accordance with reason and common sense and did not
    intend untoward results” (citation omitted)).                         Accordingly, we
    hold that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s
    motion to dismiss based on the State’s failure to prove that
    Defendant was required by statute to submit the 4 June 2012
    verification form on that date.
    II.    Jury Instructions
    -9-
    In his second argument, Defendant contends that the trial
    court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury that
    the   4   June   2012   verification   form   was   not   required   to   be
    submitted on that date based on the timetable set out in 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A.        Because Defendant did not request a
    jury instruction on this issue, we review this argument only for
    plain error.     See State v. McClary, 
    198 N.C. App. 169
    , 175, 
    679 S.E.2d 414
    , 419 (2009) (“Plain error review is only available in
    criminal cases and is limited to errors in jury instructions or
    rulings on the admissibility of evidence.”).
    [T]he plain error rule . . . is always to be
    applied   cautiously   and   only   in   the
    exceptional case where, after reviewing the
    entire record, it can be said the claimed
    error is a fundamental error, something so
    basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its
    elements that justice cannot have been done,
    or where [the error] is grave error which
    amounts to a denial of a fundamental right
    of the accused, or the error has resulted in
    a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to
    appellant of a fair trial or where the error
    is such as to seriously affect the fairness,
    integrity or public reputation of judicial
    proceedings or where it can be fairly said
    the instructional mistake had a probable
    impact on the jury's finding that the
    defendant was guilty.
    State v. Lawrence, 
    365 N.C. 506
    , 516-17, 
    723 S.E.2d 326
    , 333
    (2012) (citations and quotations omitted).
    -10-
    This argument is foreclosed by our ruling on Defendant’s
    first issue on appeal.               By arguing that the trial court erred in
    declining to instruct the jury that 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A
    did not require Defendant to submit a verification form on 4
    June    2012,    Defendant          is   essentially        re-arguing     his    earlier
    contention       that        accurate       information       is   required      only     on
    verification      forms        submitted       in    strict    accordance       with     the
    timetable set out in 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208
    .9A.                          In light of
    the    fact   that      we    have    rejected       that   argument,     it    logically
    follows   that     the       trial    court    did    not   commit      plain    error    by
    declining to instruct the jury as to this fact.
    Because    the        statutory      prohibition       against    sex    offenders
    providing a false address to law enforcement officers applies to
    verification forms submitted at any time, there was no reason
    for the trial court to instruct the jury in the manner asserted
    by Defendant.        Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not
    commit plain error in its jury instructions.
    III. Denial of Motion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Offense
    Theory
    In his final argument, Defendant contends that the trial
    court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because he was
    charged   twice      for      the    same    offense.       This    argument      is    also
    meritless.
    -11-
    Defendant characterizes the two offenses for which he was
    convicted   as    one   continuing   offense     such    that    he    could   not
    lawfully    be    convicted    twice     on     these    facts.         However,
    Defendant’s argument ignores the fact that – on two separate
    occasions – he submitted verification forms that contained false
    information regarding his address.              The submission of each of
    these forms constituted a distinct violation of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11
    (a)(4).        Consequently, we conclude             that the trial
    court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss based
    on this theory.
    Conclusion
    For     the   reasons   stated     above,    we     hold    that   Defendant
    received a fair trial free from error.
    NO ERROR.
    Judges CALABRIA and STROUD concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: COA13-1248

Judges: Davis, Calabria, Stroud

Filed Date: 8/19/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024