An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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. COA13-540

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 May 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Lincoln County

No. 11 CRS 51150

SIDNEY NOEL HOFFMAN

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 August 2012 by 

Judge Robert T. Sumner in Lincoln County Superior Court. Heard 

in the Court of Appeals 31 March 2014.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amanda P. Little, 

Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Leslie C. Rawls for defendant-appellant.

DAVIS, Judge.

Sidney Noel Hoffman (“Defendant”) appeals from his 

conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The charge 

arose from an incident at First Citizens Bank where Defendant 

informed a bank teller that she was being robbed and she 

observed the tip of a gun in his sleeve during their 

interaction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by 

(1) denying his motion to suppress; (2) denying his motion to 
-2-

dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (3) 

instructing the jury on the charge of robbery with a dangerous 

weapon. After careful review, we conclude that Defendant 

received a fair trial free from error.

Factual Background

On 18 April 2011, Defendant was charged with robbery with a 

dangerous weapon. Defendant filed a pre-trial motion to 

suppress (1) a gun and notebook seized at his residence; and (2) 

a videotaped interview of Defendant. The trial court conducted 

a suppression hearing on 30 July 2012.

Lieutenant Tim Johnson (“Lieutenant Johnson”) of the 

Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office testified that after arresting 

Defendant, he advised him of his Miranda rights and Defendant

declined to make a statement without an attorney. Defendant was 

appointed counsel the next morning. Lieutenant Johnson 

subsequently received Defendant’s inmate request form stating:

“Need to speak to Lieutenant Johnson from investigation 

concerning my case against me.” Lieutenant Johnson met with 

Defendant in an interview room. Defendant waived his Miranda 

rights, and in the videotaped interview, he told Lieutenant

Johnson that he robbed the bank but did not have a gun. 

Defendant also told Lieutenant Johnson where to find the clothes 
-3-

he wore during the robbery and a notebook with bank robbery 

“practice” notes that he created.

Lieutenant Johnson also testified at the suppression 

hearing that the bank teller, Susan Fleming (“Ms. Fleming”),

gave a statement to a responding officer that she saw the tip of 

a gun hidden in the robber’s shirt sleeve. On crossexamination, Lieutenant Johnson admitted that “[t]here was no 

description really of the gun.” At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the trial court denied the motion and the case 

proceeded to trial.

The State’s evidence at trial tended to show the following: 

On 11 April 2011, Defendant entered a First Citizens Bank in 

Denver, North Carolina, approached Ms. Fleming and handed her a 

note that said: “You’re being robbed, I have a gun and I will 

shoot you.” Ms. Fleming, who saw the tip of a gun inside 

Defendant’s shirt cuff, handed Defendant money from her bank 

drawer. Defendant left the bank and drove off in a silver 

compact car. Ms. Fleming and other bank employees gave 

statements to responding police officers.

After receiving a tip, officers went to the home Defendant 

shared with his girlfriend, Louise Mazziotti (“Ms. Mazziotti”), 

and observed a silver car in the carport. Police obtained 
-4-

consent to search the home and found a gun, registered to Ms. 

Mazziotti, on the living room table.

Defendant admitted that he entered the bank, gave a note to 

the teller demanding money, and left with the money given to him 

by her. Defendant, however, testified that he “never had a gun 

at any time in First Citizens Bank.”

The trial court instructed the jury on robbery with a 

dangerous weapon and common law robbery. The jury found 

Defendant guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial 

court sentenced Defendant to a term of 75 to 99 months active 

imprisonment. Defendant appealed to this Court.

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 

its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. 

Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that 

she has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 

N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), 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 

filed written arguments with this Court on 12 August 2013.
-5-

Analysis

First, Defendant claims the trial court erred by denying 

his motion to suppress the gun and his videotaped statement.

Our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is 

“strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge’s 

underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, 

in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and 

whether those factual findings in turn support the judge’s 

ultimate conclusions of law.” State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 

134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). “The trial court’s conclusions 

of law . . . are fully reviewable on appeal.” State v. Hughes, 

353 N.C. 200, 208, 539 S.E.2d 625, 631 (2000).

Defendant asserts the trial court erred in not suppressing 

the gun because the trial court’s Finding of Fact 10 is not 

supported by the evidence. Finding of Fact 10 states that “a 

bank teller-witness at the time of the robbery gave a statement 

to the investigating officer that she saw the tip of a gun in 

the sleeve of the Defendant’s shirt but could not otherwise 

describe the gun.” Lieutenant Johnson testified that Ms. 

Fleming told Detective William Pitts (“Detective Pitts”) of the 

Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office that she saw the tip of a gun in 

Defendant’s sleeve. Lieutenant Johnson admitted there was no 
-6-

other description of the gun. We believe the foregoing 

testimony is sufficient to support the challenged finding of 

fact.

Defendant also contends the trial court erred in not 

suppressing the videotaped statement because “his will was 

overcome to contact the Lt. to discuss his case.” Evidence 

presented at the suppression hearing shows that Defendant 

checked and initialed the following paragraph of his second 

Miranda warning on 13 April 2011: “I contacted Lieutenant Tim 

Johnson and also . . . Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office in 

reference to this case. No promises or threats have been made 

to me, no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against 

me.” This evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s

finding and conclusion that Defendant’s statement given to 

Lieutenant Johnson was voluntarily and knowingly made. 

Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion 

to suppress.

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to 

present sufficient evidence of robbery with a dangerous weapon. 

“‘Upon defendant’s motion for dismissal, the question for the 

Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each 
-7-

essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense 

included therein, and (2) of defendant’s being the perpetrator 

of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.’” State 

v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (quoting 

State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)), 

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L.Ed.2d 150 (2000). 

“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State 

v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). “In 

making its determination, the trial court must consider all 

evidence admitted, whether competent or incompetent, in the 

light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit 

of every reasonable inference and resolving any contradictions 

in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 

211, 223 (1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1135, 132 L.Ed.2d 818 

(1995).

“[T]he essential elements of robbery with a dangerous 

weapon are: ‘(1) the unlawful taking or attempted taking of 

personal property from another, (2) the possession, use or 

threatened use of firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement 

or means, and (3) danger or threat to the life of the victim.’” 

State v. Allred, 131 N.C. App. 11, 19, 505 S.E.2d 153, 158 
-8-

(1998) (quoting State v. Donnell, 117 N.C. App. 184, 188, 450 

S.E.2d 533, 536 (1994)). Defendant asserts the State failed to 

present evidence of elements two and three, pointing to evidence 

indicating that Ms. Fleming’s testimony was inconsistent with 

her written statements to responding officers.

Here, Ms. Fleming testified that (1) when Defendant 

approached her teller window, he gave her a note that said:

“You’re being robbed, I have a gun and I will shoot you;” (2)

she saw the tip of a gun inside Defendant’s right-arm shirt 

cuff; and (3) she complied with Defendant’s demand by handing 

him money from her bank drawer because “[she] was scared.” 

Further, Ms. Fleming’s testimony at trial is consistent with the 

statement she gave to Detective Pitts on the day of the robbery. 

Any discrepancy in the evidence was for the jury to resolve. 

See State v. Olson, 330 N.C. 557, 564, 411 S.E.2d 592, 595 

(1992). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly 

denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Finally, Defendant contends the trial court erred in 

instructing the jury on the charge of robbery with a dangerous

weapon. Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence to 

support the instruction and that the instruction was misleading. 

Defendant acknowledges that because he failed to object to this 
-9-

instruction at trial, our standard of review is limited to 

reviewing for plain error. Plain error only arises when the 

error is “so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements 

that justice cannot have been done[.]” State v. Lawrence, 365 

N.C. 506, 516-17, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the trial court’s 

instructions in their entirety and find no plain error.

Conclusion

In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the 

record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear 

therefrom or whether Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Because Defendant has raised only issues which are meritless, we 

conclude his appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have 

examined the record for possible prejudicial error against 

Defendant and found none.

NO ERROR.

Judges McGEE and ELMORE concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).