An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-500 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 7 January 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Robeson County Nos. 07 CRS 52689, 91, 93
LARRY BONNELL ROBINSON
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 December 2011
by Judge Douglas B. Sasser in Robeson County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals on 10 October 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel P. O’Brien, for the State.
Paul F. Herzog, for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Larry Bonnell Robinson, (“Defendant”) appeals from
judgments entered 11 December 2011. Defendant argues he is -2-
entitled to a review of his convictions to determine if the
trial court committed reversible error. We find no reversible
error.
I. Factual & Procedural History
On 2 May 2007, Merlin Oxendine, Jason Oxendine, Derrick
Locklear, and Lee Chavis were all leaving Merlin Oxendine’s
trailer when a black four-door car pulled up to the house. Two
African-American men exited the driver’s side doors wearing dark
bandanas over their faces. The driver raised a pistol with a
large barrel and began shooting. The man who exited the rear of
the car began shooting using an assault rifle, although he
experienced some difficulty firing the gun.
Derrick Locklear was shot seven times with bullets fired
from two different guns, with three shots entering his chest and
killing him at the scene. Jason Oxendine testified that the
driver of the black four-door car shot Derrick Locklear.
After Merlin Oxendine saw the two men exit the black four-
door car, he ran back into his trailer to retrieve his revolver.
When he came out, he aimed the gun and shot the driver in the
leg. The driver then fell into the car and backed the car out
of the driveway. After the car ran off into a ditch, the driver
ran from the car.
Lee Chavis was able to flee the shooting in front of the
trailer, but he was shot by two other men who came around the -3-
other side of the trailer. Chavis died shortly thereafter.
Jason Oxendine was also shot by the two men who shot Lee Chavis,
but he survived his wounds.
Subsequently, officers responding to the scene found an
African-American man, later identified as Defendant, in a field
near the trailer with gunshot wounds to both legs. DNA testing
on blood found on the driver’s side of the car was a match to
Defendant. Defendant admitted to officers that he was at the
scene and was shot. Defendant stated, however, that he had come
to the trailer because he was lost and that when he asked for
directions, “people started shooting.”
Previously, in May 2007, Isabelle Brockington overheard her
boyfriend Muhamad Rahman telling a group of six men, including
Defendant, that he was going to rob someone. Defendant, from
New York, had recently come to area and was visiting Rahman
every day. Brockington observed Rahman and Defendant loading
guns including handguns and machine guns. The next day,
Brockington saw on the front page of the “Robesonian” newspaper
a story about the shootings.
On 13 November 2007, Defendant was indicted by a Robeson
County grand jury for two counts of first-degree murder and one
count of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
On 19 September 2011, during the Criminal Session of Robeson
County Superior Court, Defendant was tried capitally by a jury -4-
before the Honorable Douglas B. Sasser, Superior Court Judge
presiding. On 16 December 2011, the jury returned verdicts of
guilty of the first-degree murder of Derrick Locklear on the
basis of premeditation and deliberation; guilty of the second-
degree murder of Lee Chavis; and guilty of the assault with a
deadly weapon inflicting serious injury on Jason Oxendine.
After a capital sentencing hearing for the first-degree
murder conviction, the jury recommended a sentence of life
imprisonment without parole. On 21 December 2011, the trial
court entered judgment accordingly. The trial court also
sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 135–171 months and
20–33 months imprisonment for the second degree murder and
assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury
convictions, respectively. Defendant gave notice of appeal in
open court.
II. Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina has appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) and N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a) from a final judgment of the Robeson
County Superior Court.
III. Analysis
Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been unable to
identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful
argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct -5-
its own review of the record for possible reversible error.
Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v.
Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), this Court must make
a determination of whether reversible error was committed by the
trial court during the proceedings.
Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he
has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch by
advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with
this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for
him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on
his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time within
which he could have done so has passed.
Counsel for Defendant has suggested two possible arguments
for this Court to consider. The first possible argument is that
the short-form murder indictment did not sufficiently charge the
offense of first-degree murder.
Our Supreme Court has consistently held that “indictments
for murder based on the short-form indictment statute are in
compliance with both the North Carolina and United States
Constitutions.” State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 174, 531 S.E.2d
428, 437 (2000). Our Supreme Court has also held that “the
short-form indictment is sufficient to charge first-degree
murder on the basis of any [theory].” Id. at 174, 531 S.E.2d at
437. -6-
Defendant was indicted for two counts of first-degree
murder using short-form indictments. In the indictments, the
grand jury provided that Defendant committed the murders
unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and with malice
aforethought. The indictments each listed a victim. The trial
court did not err by allowing Defendant’s indictment for two
counts of first-degree murder using the short-form indictments.
The second possible assignment of error suggested by
counsel is that the trial court erred by declining to dismiss
the charges due to insufficiency of the evidence that Defendant
was an active participant in the crimes rather than merely an
unknowing victim.
The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency
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.
NO. COA13-500 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 7 January 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Robeson County Nos. 07 CRS 52689, 91, 93
LARRY BONNELL ROBINSON
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 December 2011
by Judge Douglas B. Sasser in Robeson County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals on 10 October 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel P. O’Brien, for the State.
Paul F. Herzog, for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Larry Bonnell Robinson, (“Defendant”) appeals from
judgments entered 11 December 2011. Defendant argues he is -2-
entitled to a review of his convictions to determine if the
trial court committed reversible error. We find no reversible
error.
I. Factual & Procedural History
On 2 May 2007, Merlin Oxendine, Jason Oxendine, Derrick
Locklear, and Lee Chavis were all leaving Merlin Oxendine’s
trailer when a black four-door car pulled up to the house. Two
African-American men exited the driver’s side doors wearing dark
bandanas over their faces. The driver raised a pistol with a
large barrel and began shooting. The man who exited the rear of
the car began shooting using an assault rifle, although he
experienced some difficulty firing the gun.
Derrick Locklear was shot seven times with bullets fired
from two different guns, with three shots entering his chest and
killing him at the scene. Jason Oxendine testified that the
driver of the black four-door car shot Derrick Locklear.
After Merlin Oxendine saw the two men exit the black four-
door car, he ran back into his trailer to retrieve his revolver.
When he came out, he aimed the gun and shot the driver in the
leg. The driver then fell into the car and backed the car out
of the driveway. After the car ran off into a ditch, the driver
ran from the car.
Lee Chavis was able to flee the shooting in front of the
trailer, but he was shot by two other men who came around the -3-
other side of the trailer. Chavis died shortly thereafter.
Jason Oxendine was also shot by the two men who shot Lee Chavis,
but he survived his wounds.
Subsequently, officers responding to the scene found an
African-American man, later identified as Defendant, in a field
near the trailer with gunshot wounds to both legs. DNA testing
on blood found on the driver’s side of the car was a match to
Defendant. Defendant admitted to officers that he was at the
scene and was shot. Defendant stated, however, that he had come
to the trailer because he was lost and that when he asked for
directions, “people started shooting.”
Previously, in May 2007, Isabelle Brockington overheard her
boyfriend Muhamad Rahman telling a group of six men, including
Defendant, that he was going to rob someone. Defendant, from
New York, had recently come to area and was visiting Rahman
every day. Brockington observed Rahman and Defendant loading
guns including handguns and machine guns. The next day,
Brockington saw on the front page of the “Robesonian” newspaper
a story about the shootings.
On 13 November 2007, Defendant was indicted by a Robeson
County grand jury for two counts of first-degree murder and one
count of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
On 19 September 2011, during the Criminal Session of Robeson
County Superior Court, Defendant was tried capitally by a jury -4-
before the Honorable Douglas B. Sasser, Superior Court Judge
presiding. On 16 December 2011, the jury returned verdicts of
guilty of the first-degree murder of Derrick Locklear on the
basis of premeditation and deliberation; guilty of the second-
degree murder of Lee Chavis; and guilty of the assault with a
deadly weapon inflicting serious injury on Jason Oxendine.
After a capital sentencing hearing for the first-degree
murder conviction, the jury recommended a sentence of life
imprisonment without parole. On 21 December 2011, the trial
court entered judgment accordingly. The trial court also
sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 135–171 months and
20–33 months imprisonment for the second degree murder and
assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury
convictions, respectively. Defendant gave notice of appeal in
open court.
II. Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina has appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) and N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a) from a final judgment of the Robeson
County Superior Court.
III. Analysis
Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been unable to
identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful
argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct -5-
its own review of the record for possible reversible error.
Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v.
Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), this Court must make
a determination of whether reversible error was committed by the
trial court during the proceedings.
Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he
has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch by
advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with
this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for
him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on
his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time within
which he could have done so has passed.
Counsel for Defendant has suggested two possible arguments
for this Court to consider. The first possible argument is that
the short-form murder indictment did not sufficiently charge the
offense of first-degree murder.
Our Supreme Court has consistently held that “indictments
for murder based on the short-form indictment statute are in
compliance with both the North Carolina and United States
Constitutions.” State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 174, 531 S.E.2d
428, 437 (2000). Our Supreme Court has also held that “the
short-form indictment is sufficient to charge first-degree
murder on the basis of any [theory].” Id. at 174, 531 S.E.2d at
437. -6-
Defendant was indicted for two counts of first-degree
murder using short-form indictments. In the indictments, the
grand jury provided that Defendant committed the murders
unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and with malice
aforethought. The indictments each listed a victim. The trial
court did not err by allowing Defendant’s indictment for two
counts of first-degree murder using the short-form indictments.
The second possible assignment of error suggested by
counsel is that the trial court erred by declining to dismiss
the charges due to insufficiency of the evidence that Defendant
was an active participant in the crimes rather than merely an
unknowing victim.
The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence 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. State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 595,
573 S.E.2d. 866, 868 (2002). If so, the motion is properly
denied. Id. If the evidence is sufficient only to raise a
suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the
offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of
it, the motion should be allowed. Id.
In this case, the Court must determine if there is
substantial evidence of Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator -7-
of the crimes charged. Defendant admitted to the police that he
was at the scene of the crimes, but asserted that he was there
because he had gotten lost and that he was asking for directions
when the shooting started. However, eyewitness testimony
established that the driver of the black four-door car was part
of a group of four men who shot at the victims. Defendant had
injuries to both of his legs that were consistent with shots
fired by Merlin Oxendine at the driver. Shortly before the
shooting, Brockington had heard Rahman mention his plan to
commit a robbery to Defendant and others, and she had seen
Defendant and Rahman loading guns of the same type used in the
murders and assault. Based on the evidence presented to the
Court, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that
Defendant was a perpetrator of the crimes charged.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the
record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear
therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible reversible
error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
No error.
Judges ERVIN and DAVIS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).