An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-864
Filed 18 June 2025
Pitt County, No. 22 CRS 052534 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. ANTHONY ANTONIO BRASWELL, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 1 June 2023 by Judge Marvin K.
Blount III in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 April 2025.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Jessica M. Major, for the State.
Stephen G. Driggers for Defendant.
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Defendant Anthony Antonio Braswell appeals from the trial court’s judgment
entered after a jury convicted him of felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle.
Defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal. We hold
Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On 6 May 2022, Defendant and George Shaever got into an altercation at a bar
in downtown Greenville. Defendant was visiting the bar with his sister, and Shaever STATE V. BRASWELL
Opinion of the Court
was working as an emcee. Shaever drove a white Ford Focus to work that evening
and parked it in a small lot across the street from the bar.
After his duties concluded, Shaever helped the band who performed that night
load their belongings into their trailer at the front of the bar. While assisting the
band members, Shaever noticed the passenger door of his car was open and feet were
dangling out of the car. Shaever immediately ran over and found Defendant sitting
in his car on the driver’s side “messing around with stuff.” Shaever “jumped on top
of him” and “hit him a few times.” Defendant and Shaever got into a physical
altercation in the parking lot, and Defendant threatened to get his gun. The police
were called and arrived shortly thereafter.
Officers Wilbur Espinoza, Jennifer Umphlet, and Nicholas Petraglia
responded to the scene. Defendant told Officer Umphlet he believed he was
intoxicated, and Defendant admitted he got into Shaever’s car. Defendant requested
the officers check the street video cameras in the area to see what happened.
On 24 October 2022, Defendant was indicted for felony breaking or entering a
motor vehicle. Defendant’s case came on for trial during the 29 May 2023 Criminal
Session in Pitt County Superior Court. At trial, the jury heard testimony from
Defendant, Shaever, and the officers who were present at the scene. Additionally,
the jury watched video and audio recordings of Defendant’s interactions with the
officers. Body-camera footage of Officer Espinoza, Officer Umphlet, and Officer
Petraglia was admitted into evidence.
-2- STATE V. BRASWELL
On 1 June 2023, the jury found Defendant guilty of felony breaking or entering
a motor vehicle. The court entered judgments on 1 June 2023. Defendant timely
appeals.
II. Analysis
Defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial
counsel failed to obtain “potentially exculpatory video recordings.” Specifically,
Defendant contends there was street video footage that would have shown he lacked
the requisite intent to commit the alleged offense and his trial counsel’s failure to
obtain and produce the videos at trial was prejudicial. We disagree.
While the preferred method of raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
is by a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court, “a defendant may bring his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. On direct appeal, [a]
defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘will be decided on the merits when
the cold record reveals that no further investigation is required[.]’” State v. Phifer,
165 N.C. App. 123, 127, 598 S.E.2d 172, 175 (2004) (quoting State v. Fair, 354 N.C.
131, 166, 557 S.E.2d 500, 524 (2001)).
To challenge a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must establish that his counsel’s conduct “fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness.” State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561–62, 324 S.E.2d 241, 248
(1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). To meet this
burden, a defendant must satisfy a two-part test. Id. at 562, 324 S.E.2d at 248. First,
-3- STATE V. BRASWELL
the defendant must prove that his counsel’s performance was deficient, such that
“counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’
guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. (citation omitted). Second,
the defendant must prove his counsel’s performance was prejudicial, such that
“counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial
whose result is reliable.” Id. (citation omitted). An error made by counsel, even an
unreasonable one, “does not warrant reversal of a conviction unless there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, there would have been a different
result in the proceedings.” Id. at 563, 324 S.E.2d at 248 (citation omitted).
At the outset, we note there is “a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct
falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Counsel is given
wide latitude in matters of strategy, and the burden to show that counsel’s
performance fell short of the required standard is a heavy one for [the] defendant to
bear.” State v. Oglesby, 382 N.C. 235, 243, 876 S.E.2d 249, 256 (2022) (citations and
internal marks omitted).
At trial, Defendant’s counsel argued because Defendant was intoxicated,
Defendant lacked the requisite intent to be convicted of breaking or entering a motor
vehicle. On appeal, Defendant argues his trial counsel erred by not obtaining the
video footage in question because it would show “he sat in Shaever’s car by mistake,
that he had not broken the door handle, and he did not take anything.”
To be convicted of felony breaking or entering, the State must prove beyond a
-4- STATE V. BRASWELL
reasonable doubt: “(1) there was a breaking or entering by the defendant; (2) without
consent; (3) into a motor vehicle; (4) containing goods, wares, freight, or anything of
value; and (5) with the intent to commit any felony or larceny therein.” State v.
Jackson, 162 N.C. App. 695, 698, 592 S.E.2d 575, 577 (2004) (emphasis removed).
“‘Where a specific intent element is an essential element of the offense charged,
voluntary intoxication may negate the existence of that intent.’” State v. Meader, 269
N.C. App. 446, 447, 838 S.E.2d 643, 644 (2020) (quoting State v. Kyle, 333 N.C. 687,
698–99, 430 S.E.2d 412, 418 (1993)).
Assuming without deciding that failing to obtain the video footage in question
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-864
Filed 18 June 2025
Pitt County, No. 22 CRS 052534 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. ANTHONY ANTONIO BRASWELL, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 1 June 2023 by Judge Marvin K.
Blount III in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 April 2025.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Jessica M. Major, for the State.
Stephen G. Driggers for Defendant.
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Defendant Anthony Antonio Braswell appeals from the trial court’s judgment
entered after a jury convicted him of felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle.
Defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal. We hold
Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On 6 May 2022, Defendant and George Shaever got into an altercation at a bar
in downtown Greenville. Defendant was visiting the bar with his sister, and Shaever STATE V. BRASWELL
Opinion of the Court
was working as an emcee. Shaever drove a white Ford Focus to work that evening
and parked it in a small lot across the street from the bar.
After his duties concluded, Shaever helped the band who performed that night
load their belongings into their trailer at the front of the bar. While assisting the
band members, Shaever noticed the passenger door of his car was open and feet were
dangling out of the car. Shaever immediately ran over and found Defendant sitting
in his car on the driver’s side “messing around with stuff.” Shaever “jumped on top
of him” and “hit him a few times.” Defendant and Shaever got into a physical
altercation in the parking lot, and Defendant threatened to get his gun. The police
were called and arrived shortly thereafter.
Officers Wilbur Espinoza, Jennifer Umphlet, and Nicholas Petraglia
responded to the scene. Defendant told Officer Umphlet he believed he was
intoxicated, and Defendant admitted he got into Shaever’s car. Defendant requested
the officers check the street video cameras in the area to see what happened.
On 24 October 2022, Defendant was indicted for felony breaking or entering a
motor vehicle. Defendant’s case came on for trial during the 29 May 2023 Criminal
Session in Pitt County Superior Court. At trial, the jury heard testimony from
Defendant, Shaever, and the officers who were present at the scene. Additionally,
the jury watched video and audio recordings of Defendant’s interactions with the
officers. Body-camera footage of Officer Espinoza, Officer Umphlet, and Officer
Petraglia was admitted into evidence.
-2- STATE V. BRASWELL
On 1 June 2023, the jury found Defendant guilty of felony breaking or entering
a motor vehicle. The court entered judgments on 1 June 2023. Defendant timely
appeals.
II. Analysis
Defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial
counsel failed to obtain “potentially exculpatory video recordings.” Specifically,
Defendant contends there was street video footage that would have shown he lacked
the requisite intent to commit the alleged offense and his trial counsel’s failure to
obtain and produce the videos at trial was prejudicial. We disagree.
While the preferred method of raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
is by a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court, “a defendant may bring his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. On direct appeal, [a]
defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘will be decided on the merits when
the cold record reveals that no further investigation is required[.]’” State v. Phifer,
165 N.C. App. 123, 127, 598 S.E.2d 172, 175 (2004) (quoting State v. Fair, 354 N.C.
131, 166, 557 S.E.2d 500, 524 (2001)).
To challenge a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must establish that his counsel’s conduct “fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness.” State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561–62, 324 S.E.2d 241, 248
(1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). To meet this
burden, a defendant must satisfy a two-part test. Id. at 562, 324 S.E.2d at 248. First,
-3- STATE V. BRASWELL
the defendant must prove that his counsel’s performance was deficient, such that
“counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’
guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. (citation omitted). Second,
the defendant must prove his counsel’s performance was prejudicial, such that
“counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial
whose result is reliable.” Id. (citation omitted). An error made by counsel, even an
unreasonable one, “does not warrant reversal of a conviction unless there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, there would have been a different
result in the proceedings.” Id. at 563, 324 S.E.2d at 248 (citation omitted).
At the outset, we note there is “a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct
falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Counsel is given
wide latitude in matters of strategy, and the burden to show that counsel’s
performance fell short of the required standard is a heavy one for [the] defendant to
bear.” State v. Oglesby, 382 N.C. 235, 243, 876 S.E.2d 249, 256 (2022) (citations and
internal marks omitted).
At trial, Defendant’s counsel argued because Defendant was intoxicated,
Defendant lacked the requisite intent to be convicted of breaking or entering a motor
vehicle. On appeal, Defendant argues his trial counsel erred by not obtaining the
video footage in question because it would show “he sat in Shaever’s car by mistake,
that he had not broken the door handle, and he did not take anything.”
To be convicted of felony breaking or entering, the State must prove beyond a
-4- STATE V. BRASWELL
reasonable doubt: “(1) there was a breaking or entering by the defendant; (2) without
consent; (3) into a motor vehicle; (4) containing goods, wares, freight, or anything of
value; and (5) with the intent to commit any felony or larceny therein.” State v.
Jackson, 162 N.C. App. 695, 698, 592 S.E.2d 575, 577 (2004) (emphasis removed).
“‘Where a specific intent element is an essential element of the offense charged,
voluntary intoxication may negate the existence of that intent.’” State v. Meader, 269
N.C. App. 446, 447, 838 S.E.2d 643, 644 (2020) (quoting State v. Kyle, 333 N.C. 687,
698–99, 430 S.E.2d 412, 418 (1993)).
Assuming without deciding that failing to obtain the video footage in question
was error, we hold it was not prejudicial because there was other evidence presented
that gave the jury an opportunity to evaluate Defendant’s arguments. See State v.
Corbett, 376 N.C. 799, 831, 855 S.E.2d 228, 251 (2021) (“[T]he prejudicial impact of
excluding Tom’s testimony was limited because this testimony was largely
duplicative of other testimony that was admitted into evidence tending to establish
his state of mind.”); State v. Brown, 272 N.C. 512, 515, 158 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1968)
(“The admission of testimony over objection is ordinarily harmless when testimony of
the same import is theretofore or thereafter introduced without objection[.]” (citation
and internal marks omitted)).
Here, the jury heard testimony from Defendant, Shaever, and the officers who
were present. Additionally, the jury watched video and audio recordings of
Defendant’s interactions with the officers. Body-camera footage of Officer Espinoza,
-5- STATE V. BRASWELL
Officer Umphlet, and Officer Petraglia was admitted into evidence. Defendant
admitted he got into Shaever’s car, he was intoxicated, and he got into a physical
altercation with Shaever after he entered Shaever’s car. Shaever testified he saw
Defendant sitting in his car “messing around with stuff” and as a result, he struck
him several times. When officers responded to the scene, Defendant explained to
them what happened. Officer Espinoza testified Defendant did not appear to be
drunk or intoxicated.
Even if there exists street video footage of the incident, the jury heard and saw
enough evidence to evaluate Defendant’s level of intoxication to determine if he had
the requisite intent. Additionally, Defendant’s trial counsel in closing asked the jury
to give “great consideration [to] the mental state of [Defendant] and to consider his
inability, the faculties that he did not have about him.” The jury was instructed that
if they found Defendant was intoxicated to “consider whether this condition affected
[] [D]efendant’s ability to formulate the specific intent which is required for conviction
of breaking or entering a motor vehicle.” The weight and credibility of the evidence
is for the jury to decide, State v. Shelton, 293 N.C. App. 154, 160, 899 S.E.2d 894, 899
(2024), and here the jury found Defendant had the requisite intent to commit felony
breaking or entering, based on the evidence presented to them. Thus, we hold even
if it was error for defense counsel to not obtain or produce the video footage at trial,
the absence of the videos does not prejudice Defendant because “[evidence] of the
same import” was “introduced without objection[.]” Brown, 272 N.C. at 515, 158
-6- STATE V. BRASWELL
S.E.2d at 356 (citation and internal marks omitted).
The State also produced substantial evidence to support a breaking or
entering conviction absent the video footage in question being admitted into evidence.
See State v. Todd, 290 N.C. App. 448, 464, 892 S.E.2d 240, 252–53 (2023) (noting that
because the State presented sufficient evidence of the defendant being the
perpetrator of the offense, the defendant could not show prejudice as part of his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim (citing State v. Blackmon, 208 N.C. App. 397,
403, 702 S.E.2d 833, 837 (2010))).
Here, Defendant does not dispute he was the perpetrator of the offense, and he
in fact admits that he was. The primary question was whether he had the intent to
commit the offense, and the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to make
this determination absent any additional video footage being admitted into evidence.
Thus, Defendant has failed to show a reasonable probability that had the
videos been obtained and the footage produced at trial; the outcome of trial would
have been different. See Braswell, 312 N.C. at 563, 324 S.E.2d at 248.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hold Defendant did not receive ineffective
assistance of counsel.
NO ERROR.
Judges ZACHARY and FLOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-7-