Opinion
No. COA12–1263.
2013-03-19
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Lamont LONG.
Sharon L. Smith of Unti & Lumsden LLP, for defendant. Attorney General Roy Cooper by Associate Attorney General J. Rick Brown, for the State.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 16 May 2011 by Judge James M. Webb in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 2013. Sharon L. Smith of Unti & Lumsden LLP, for defendant. Attorney General Roy Cooper by Associate Attorney General J. Rick Brown, for the State.
ELMORE, Judge.
Anthony Lamont Long (defendant) challenges an order entered 27 April 2011 by Judge Edgar B. Gregory denying his motion to suppress. Defendant's case was first heard by this Court on 4 April 2012 and was dismissed because the notice of appeal was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction. However, on 27 July 2012 this Court entered an order allowing defendant's petition for writ of certiorari, and the case is before us again. After careful consideration, we affirm the trial court's order.
I. Background
Around noon on 8 December 2010, Detective J.B. Blanks and Corporal John Ryan were parked in unmarked vehicles in the parking lot of a Chili's restaurant on High Point Road in Greensboro. While waiting for Blanks' partner to arrive for lunch, Blanks observed a black Mustang circle the parking lot and then park approximately 50 feet from his and Ryan's vehicles. The Mustang was driven by a white female, and a black male was seated in the passenger seat. The black male was later identified as defendant. A few minutes later, a black Nissan Titan pickup truck pulled into the parking lot and backed into the space next to the Mustang. Defendant then exited the Mustang and got into the passenger side of the Nissan. Blanks then observed the driver of the Nissan hand defendant a white, rectangular-shaped box. Defendant shook the driver's hand and exited the vehicle, concealing the box under his jacket as he returned to the Mustang.
Based on his observations, Blanks felt as though an illegal drug transaction had just occurred. He then got into Ryan's vehicle, and the two officers decided to follow the Mustang as it began to exit the parking lot. They followed the vehicle west on Interstate 40 and then initiated a traffic stop near the exit for Bryan Blvd. Ryan approached the driver's side of the Mustang, while Blanks approached the passenger side. Blanks observed the white box on the floorboard, partially under the passenger seat. Blanks then instructed defendant to exit the vehicle. A K–9 unit was then called to conduct an exterior search, and the unit indicated on the passenger door. Officers then collected the white box and found two packages of cocaine inside.
On 7 March 2011, defendant was charged with 1) trafficking in between 200 and 400 grams of cocaine by possession, 2) trafficking in between 200 and 400 grams of cocaine by transportation, and 3) conspiracy to traffic in between 200 and 400 grams of cocaine by possession. Defendant pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress. The motion came on for hearing on 26 April 2011, and was denied by the trial court on 27 April 2011. Following the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant entered a guilty plea, and he was sentenced to 70 to 84 months imprisonment and a fine of $100,000.00. During the sentencing hearing, defendant indicated that he wished to maintain his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal. Subsequently, on 16 May 2011, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the order entered 27 April 2011.
His case was heard by this Court on 4 April 2012 . In a unanimous unpublished opinion, we dismissed defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We noted that “the appropriate manner in which to challenge the denial of a suppression motion is to note an appeal from the underlying judgment instead of from the order denying the motion to suppress.” However, on 11 July 2012, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted on 27 July 2012.
No. COA11–1363
II. Analysis
Defendant's primary argument on appeal is that the stop of the vehicle in which he was riding was not based on reasonable suspicion. We disagree.
Our review of a trial court's denial of 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.” State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). When “the trial court's findings of fact are not challenged on appeal, they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review.” State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2011) (quotations and citations omitted).
Here, defendant has not challenged any of the trial court's findings of fact. Instead, defendant challenges the trial court's conclusion that Blanks and Ryan had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. Defendant cites State v. Roberts, 142 N.C.App. 424, 542 S.E.2d 703 (2001), as support for his argument. We find Roberts to be distinguishable from the case sub judice.
In Roberts, officers observed a black truck driving along a public street at 9:30 PM. The truck at times traveled slowly, and stopped at a convenience store, which was closed, for about four minutes. Later, the truck traveled through a neighborhood with a reputation for illegal drug transactions. There, the truck stopped in the middle of the road and the defendant exited the vehicle. Officers then stopped the defendant and found drugs in his possession. On appeal, we concluded that the officers “did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and, thus, any seizure of drugs from Defendant's person should have been suppressed.” Roberts at 430, 542 S.E.2d at 708. In reaching our decision, we noted that the officers “did not observe the occupants of the black truck make any transaction, or engage in illegal activity[.]” Id . at 426, 542 S.E.2d at 705.
In contrast, here the trial court's findings of fact indicate that Blanks and Ryan had reason to believe that they witnessed defendant engage in a drug transaction. The trial court found that “Corporal Ryan has had considerable training in drug investigations” and that he “observed the black male in the Nissan raise a white rectangular shaped box from his lap area over the center console of the Nissan and hand the box to the defendant.... [D]efendant took the box and then shook hands with the black male in the Nissan.” The trial court also found that “Blanks, based on his training and experience, was of the opinion that he had just observed an illegal drug sale transaction.” As defendant has not challenged these findings, they are binding on appeal.
This Court has long adhered to the rule that “[a]n officer has reasonable suspicion if a reasonable, cautious officer, guided by his experience and training, would believe that criminal activity is afoot based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts.” State v. Williams, –––, N.C. ––––, ––––, 726 S.E.2d 161, 167 (2012) (quotations and citations omitted). The trial court's findings of fact clearly establish that Blanks and Ryan were presented with such facts and circumstances to warrant their belief that defendant had engaged in an illegal drug transaction. As such, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress.
Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and ERVIN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).