State v. Applewhite

904 S.E.2d 749

STATE of North Carolina

v.Robin APPLEWHITE

No. 39A22

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed August 23, 2024

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 281 N.C. App. 66, 868 S.E.2d 137 (2021), finding no error in judgments entered on 5 March 2019 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Superior Court, Cumberland County. On 4 May 2022, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court on 15 February 2024.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by A. Mercedes Restucha-Klem, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.

BARRINGER, Justice.

In this case, we are tasked with determining whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgments following a jury’s verdict finding defendant guilty of twelve counts of human trafficking, eleven counts of promoting prostitution, four counts of conspiracy to promote prostitution, and attaining habitual felon status. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

I. Background

Between December 2012 and March 2015, defendant met several women, including A.C., H.M., A.B., and M.F.¹ Defendant supplied the women with heroin, to which they quickly became addicted. Defendant used heroin to force the women to engage in prostitution arranged by defendant and his wife via online advertisements on Backpage, a website used to solicit prostitution customers. The women used the money they received to pay defendant for heroin as well as their basic needs. They paid defendant far more than what the heroin was worth. Defendant withheld from the women drugs, food, sleep, and any means of communication. He also provided the women housing in exchange for payment but would occasionally lock them in his basement or a hotel room. Defendant transported the women throughout North Carolina, and across state lines to Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida to engage in prostitution.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of five counts of trafficking A.C. between December 2012 and January 2013. Defendant used drugs to entice A.C. to lease a house that defendant would use for prostitution and storing drugs. Ultimately, defendant convinced A.C. to engage in prostitution. Defendant and his wife posted A.C.’s advertisement on Backpage at least 197 times in three cities. Defendant scheduled A.C. to engage in at least ten appointments per night.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of two counts of trafficking H.M. between January 2014 and March 2014. Defendant met H.M. when he began supplying her heroin, which H.M. smoked daily. Eventually, defendant convinced H.M. to prostitute for him via online advertisements. Defendant agreed to support H.M. in exchange for prostituting. Defendant drove H.M. to Greensboro, Raleigh, and South Carolina while she was under the influence of heroin. In addition, defendant would lock H.M. in her hotel room or his basement without food or drugs.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of three counts of trafficking A.B. between January 2014 and April 2015. Defendant first met A.B. when he approached her outside a hotel and gave her pills, after which they engaged in sexual acts. A.B. traveled with defendant to his home where defendant offered A.B. what she thought was cocaine but was in fact heroin. At first, defendant provided A.B. with heroin without asking for anything in return. Ultimately, defendant forced A.B. to engage in acts of prostitution in exchange for drugs and housing. Defendant advertised A.B. online and drove A.B. to Charlotte and Raleigh to engage in prostitution.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of two counts of trafficking M.F. between March 2014 and April 2015. Before meeting defendant, M.F. used crack cocaine, but she began using heroin after she met defendant. Defendant treated M.F. like a girlfriend, but he still had her engage in prostitution. Advertisements for M.F. were posted on Backpage over 219 times.

Beginning on 18 February 2019, defendant represented himself pro se at trial. M.F. died before trial, but A.C., H.M., and A.B., among others, testified to their working arrangements with defendant. The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding defendant guilty of the above-listed charges. The jury found defendant not guilty of charges related to two other victims. Defendant was calculated as a prior record level five offender based on fourteen previous record points. Defendant did not stipulate in writing to the State’s calculation of his prior record points. Defendant was sentenced to 2880 to 3744 months to be served consecutively, totaling 240 to 312 years in prison. The trial court also required defendant to register as a sex offender.

Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued a divided opinion finding no error by the trial court. State v. Applewhite, 281 N.C. App. 66, 81, 868 S.E.2d 137 (2021). Judge Arrowood concurred in part and dissented in part. In his dissent, he argued that human trafficking is a continuing offense because the statute criminalizing human trafficking does not define the unit of prosecution. Id. (Arrowood, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Having committed a continuing offense, defendant could only be convicted of a single, continuing count of human trafficking per victim. Id. Therefore, the dissenting judge would remand defendant’s case to the trial court to vacate all but one count of human trafficking per victim. Id. at 82, 868 S.E.2d 137.

II. Standard of Review

[1, 2] This Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. High Point Bank & Trust Co. v. Highmark Props., LLC, 368 N.C. 301, 304, 776 S.E.2d 838 (2015). This Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment de novo. State v. Oldroyd, 380 N.C. 613, 617, 869 S.E.2d 193 (2022).

[3, 4] This Court exercises de novo review over "questions of law concerning the trial court’s alleged nonconformance with statutory requirements." State v. Flow, 384 N.C. 528, 546, 886 S.E.2d 71 (2023) (extraneity omitted). This Court will not vacate a judgment by the trial court unless the defendant can show such error prejudiced him. Id. at 549, 886 S.E.2d 71, 384 N.C. 528.

III. Analysis

Defendant filed a notice of appeal based on a dissent at the Court of Appeals. Defendant also filed a petition for discretionary review of additional issues with this Court, which was allowed. On appeal, defendant argues first that he may only be convicted of a single count of human trafficking per victim. Second, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it failed to compare the elements of defendant’s earlier federal firearms conviction to a North Carolina offense. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that found no error in the trial court’s judgments.

A. Defendant may be convicted of multiple counts of human trafficking per victim.

1. Unit of Prosecution

At issue in this case is the unit of prosecution under N.C.G.S. § 14-43.11 (2021). Section 14-43.11² states, in pertinent part:

(a) A person commits the offense of human trafficking when that person (i) knowingly or in reckless disregard of the consequences of the action recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means another person with the intent that the other person be held in involuntary servitude or sexual servitude or (ii) willfully or in reckless disregard of the consequences of the action causes a minor to be held in involuntary servitude or sexual servitude.

….

(c) Each violation of this section constitutes a separate offense and shall not merge with any other offense. Evidence of failure to deliver benefits or perform services standing alone shall not be sufficient to authorize a conviction under this section.

….

[5, 6] "In resolving issues of statutory construction, we look first to the language of the statute itself." Raleigh Hous. Auth. v. Winston, 376 N.C. 790, 795, 855 S.E.2d 209 (2021) (quoting Walker v. Bd. of Trs. of the N.C. Loc. Gov’tal Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 348 N.C. 63, 65, 499 S.E.2d 429 (1998)). "When the [language] in the statute is unambiguous, the [language] ‘should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning.’ " Id. (quoting Fid. Bank v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 370 N.C. 10, 20, 803 S.E.2d 142 (2017)).

Here, the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. Subsection (a) of N.C.G.S. § 14-43.11 states that "[a] person commits the offense of human trafficking when that person" (1) "knowingly or in reckless disregard of the consequences of the action"; (2) "recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides or obtains by any means [the victim]"; (3) "with the intent that [the victim] be held in … sexual servitude." N.C.G.S. § 14-43.11(a). The second element of section 14-43.11 is satisfied each time a defendant engages in any of the actions listed in subsection (a), "or" any other conduct that constitutes "obtain[ing]" the victim for the illicit purposes described in the statute. Id. (emphasis added).

[7] Furthermore, subsection (c) of the human trafficking statute specifically states that "[e]ach violation of this section constitutes a separate offense and shall not merge with any other offense." Id. § 14-43.11(c). The plain language of subsection (c) clarifies that human trafficking is not a continuing offense. The language specifies that violations are separate offenses. The explicit language in the statute that each violation is a separate offense demonstrates that each distinct act of recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a victim can be separately prosecuted. In order to give meaning to every word of the statute, the statute can only be read to reference multiple criminal acts.

[8, 9] Moreover, the statute explicitly states that violations shall not merge with other offenses. This anti-merger clause demonstrates that: (1) a...