State v. Stokley

855 S.E.2d 834

STATE of North Carolina

v.Rodney STOKLEY, Jr.

No. COA20-177

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 16, 2021

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Rajeev K. Premakumar, for the State.

Richard J. Constanza, for defendant-appellant.

TYSON, Judge.

¶ 1 Rodney Stokley, Jr. ("Defendant") appeals from judgments entered after a jury returned verdicts finding him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and second-degree kidnapping. Defendant seeks this Court's review of the ruling on his motion to dismiss the charge of second-degree kidnapping, and to award a new trial for unpreserved plain error in the jury instructions. We find no error.

I. Background

¶ 2 Clinton Saunders ("Saunders") was playing video games in his dark bedroom and was wearing noise-canceling headphones on 11 December 2017. Earlier that evening, Damon Williams ("Williams"), Rasheem Williams ("Rasheem") and Rodney Stokley ("Defendant") planned to rob Saunders’ roommate, Jordan Baeza ("Baeza"). As Saunders played video games, a tall, unidentified man, later identified as Defendant, came into Saunders’ room, brandished a gun, and motioned for him to move. Saunders walked to the living room, "assuming that is where I was supposed to go" with his hands up. Saunders testified, "[h]e told me to get on the ground, so I just laid face down."

¶ 3 Saunders was not tied up or placed in restraints. He recalled two men were inside the house with him at the time. One man was already in the living room, and the other man was behind him, holding a gun. Nothing was taken or removed from Saunders at the time he was taken from his bedroom into the living room or immediately thereafter.

¶ 4 Soon after Saunders had laid onto the floor, Baeza entered the house from the garage and said, "D.J. what the hell?" Defendant was hovering over Saunders, pointing the gun at him, and then pointed the gun at Baeza. Defendant looked at Baeza and said, "What's up, buddy?" and told Baeza to get onto the floor. Saunders testified he heard one of the perpetrators say, "Where is it, where is it[?]" and heard footsteps walking around the house.

¶ 5 Saunders testified he heard Baeza tell the men that Saunders had nothing to do with this and to not hurt him. The perpetrators responded they would not harm Saunders. Initially, Baeza got onto the kitchen floor, but then attempted to escape. As he fled, Defendant shot Baeza in the back.

¶ 6 Saunders heard the gunshot, felt the heat from the discharge, and could "hear blood coming out." Baeza testified Defendant spoke to him after he had shot him. While this was occurring, Baeza told the robbers where he kept his money. Williams began "ransacking" Baeza's room and took his wallet. Someone rifled through Saunders’ pockets and took his cellphone. The intruders left the residence. Saunders realized Baeza had been shot and drove him to the hospital, where Baeza underwent several surgeries.

¶ 7 Police officers took initial statements from Baeza and Saunders at the hospital. In a later interview, Baeza told police it was Defendant, who had shot him. Baeza came to this conclusion after looking at Defendant's Facebook social media page. Baeza testified he was "One-hundred percent" sure that Defendant had shot him.

¶ 8 Defendant was arrested on 2 January 2018 and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree kidnapping, and second-degree kidnapping.

¶ 9 The Pasquotank County Grand Jury returned true bills of indictment charging Defendant with the offenses listed above on 26 February 2018. The second-degree kidnapping indictment alleged Defendant "unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did kidnap Clinton Saunders ... by unlawfully confining him without his consent and for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a felony, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon."

¶ 10 Williams entered into a plea bargain with the State. He pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury and was placed on supervised probation for 48 months. One condition of this probation required him to testify for the State at Defendant's trial.

¶ 11 Williams testified his nickname is D.J. and that he had invited Rasheem to join him to "get some money" from Baeza. Rasheem then invited Defendant to join them. Williams knew both of these men prior to this event. He drove Rasheem and Defendant to Baeza's home the night of the robbery. Williams testified he dropped Rasheem and Defendant off prior to entering Baeza's driveway, "[b]ecause we were trying to find a way in" the house to "rob him."

¶ 12 Defense counsel argued both kidnapping charges should be dismissed, contending the victims were not restrained to a degree over that inherent during the underlying robbery. The trial court dismissed the charge of first-degree kidnapping related to Baeza but the trial court denied dismissing the second-degree kidnapping charge related to Saunders.

¶ 13 Defendant testified in his own defense. He denied having any involvement in the kidnapping, robbery and shooting. He asserted he was attending a memorial service for a deceased family member when the robbery and shooting occurred.

¶ 14 The trial court instructed the jury on second-degree kidnapping. The trial court did not instruct the jury on the confinement theory of kidnapping, as was alleged in the indictment. Defense counsel failed to raise an objection to this omission.

¶ 15 The jury found Defendant guilty of second-degree kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defense counsel moved to arrest judgment on the conviction for second-degree kidnapping of Saunders, and renewed the arguments previously made. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded to sentencing.

¶ 16 Defendant was sentenced to 29 to 47 months of imprisonment for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and 73 to 100 months of imprisonment to run consecutively to the assault sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon. For second-degree kidnapping, Defendant was sentenced to 29 to 47 months imprisonment, which was suspended, Defendant was placed on supervised probation for 36 months, to commence after he completed the terms of active imprisonment. Defendant entered notice of appeal in open court.

II. Jurisdiction

¶ 17 This Court possesses jurisdiction from an appeal from a final judgment entered in a criminal case following a jury's return of guilty verdicts. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) (2019).

III. Issues

¶ 18 Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of second-degree kidnapping, after the State failed to show Saunders was subjected to restraint other than what was inherent in the underlying robbery. Defendant also argues, without objection and preservation, the trial court committed plain error when instructing the jury on second-degree kidnapping. He asserts the instructions allowed the jury to return a conviction based on theories other than what was alleged in the indictment.

IV. Second-Degree Kidnapping

A. Standard of Review

¶ 19 "This Court reviews the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. " State v. Smith , 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court examines the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State all reasonable inferences. State v. Fritsch , 351 N.C. 373, 378-79, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000). This Court must determine whether substantial evidence supports each element of the offense and that the defendant committed the offense. State v. Jones , 110 N.C. App. 169, 177, 429 S.E.2d 597, 602 (1993), disc. review denied , 336 N.C. 612, 447 S.E.2d 407 (1994). Substantial evidence is defined as evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to form a conclusion. State v. Smith , 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980).

B. Analysis

¶ 20 Defendant argues the conviction for second-degree kidnapping should be reversed because none of the actions supporting that offense were separate and apart from the accompanying robbery. Defendant asserts his actions amounted to a mere technical asportation of Saunders, who was not exposed to any greater danger than what occurred during the underlying robbery.

¶ 21 The State acknowledges, "[T]his is a very tangled area of the law. The Courts are all over the place."

[T]here is consistency in the Courts’ opinions where the evidence tended to show that a victim was bound and physically harmed by the robbers during the robbery. Clearly that type of restraint creates the kind of danger and abuse the kidnapping statute was designed to prevent. The case law does not provide a bright line rule for situations where a victim is merely ordered to move to another location while the robbery is taking place, but is not bound or physically harmed.

State v. Payton , 198 N.C. App. 320, 327-28, 679 S.E.2d 502, 506-07 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

¶ 22 Kidnapping in North Carolina is statutorily defined as:

(a) Any person who shall unlawfully confine, restrain, or remove from one place to another, any other person 16 years of age or over without the consent of such person, or any other person under the age of 16 years without the consent of a parent or legal custodian of such person, shall be guilty of kidnapping if such confinement, restraint or removal is for the purpose of:

(1) Holding such other person for a ransom or as a hostage or using such other person as a shield; or

(2) Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony; or

(3) Doing serious bodily harm to or terrorizing the person so confined, restrained or removed or any other person; or

...

(b) There shall be two degrees of kidnapping as defined by subsection (a).

...