State v. Brown

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Brown

234 S.E.2d 32, 33 N.C. App. 84, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2105

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 20, 1977

DocketNo. 7626SC933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 S.E.2d 32 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brown, 234 S.E.2d 32, 33 N.C. App. 84, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2105 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant attempts to argue that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was not represented by counsel when probable cause was found in District Court on 3 October 1975. The record discloses that defendant signed a waiver of right to counsel on 6 August 1975. He was represented by the Public Defender at his trial in the Superior Court and at no time did he suggest to the court that he had been prejudiced by the absence of counsel at his preliminary hearing. Judgment was entered in the Superior Court on 25 May 1976. Thereafter, on 29 October 1976, defendant executed an affidavit wherein he contends that his request for counsel was denied. That affidavit was included in the record on appeal. This Court will not consider the purported assignment of error because it is not based on anything that was presented or adjudicated in the Superior Court.

In defendant’s only other argument, he contends that the case should have been dismissed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. He appears to concede that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that he had heroin in his possession. He argues, nevertheless, that there was no direct evidence that he intended to sell the heroin. The evidence disclosed that defendant was caught possessing 14 aluminum packages that were enclosed in a glassine envelope hidden in a cigarette [86]*86pack. The same substance was in all of the aluminum packages. The ingredients from all of the packages were combined and tested. The substance was 2.8 percent heroin. This evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that defendant possessed the heroin with the intent to sell or deliver the same.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant attempts to argue that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was not represented by counsel when probable cause was found in District Court on 3 October 1975. The record discloses that defendant signed a waiver of right to counsel on 6 August 1975. He was represented by the Public Defender at his trial in the Superior Court and at no time did he suggest to the court that he had been prejudiced by the absence of counsel at his preliminary hearing. Judgment was entered in the Superior Court on 25 May 1976. Thereafter, on 29 October 1976, defendant executed an affidavit wherein he contends that his request for counsel was denied. That affidavit was included in the record on appeal. This Court will not consider the purported assignment of error because it is not based on anything that was presented or adjudicated in the Superior Court.

In defendant’s only other argument, he contends that the case should have been dismissed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. He appears to concede that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that he had heroin in his possession. He argues, nevertheless, that there was no direct evidence that he intended to sell the heroin. The evidence disclosed that defendant was caught possessing 14 aluminum packages that were enclosed in a glassine envelope hidden in a cigarette [86]*86pack. The same substance was in all of the aluminum packages. The ingredients from all of the packages were combined and tested. The substance was 2.8 percent heroin. This evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that defendant possessed the heroin with the intent to sell or deliver the same.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.E.2d 32, 33 N.C. App. 84, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-ncctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack