An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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. COA14-218

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 August 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Sampson County

Nos. 12 CRS 1593-5; 50683-4

BOBBY GLENN AUTRY

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 30 October 2013 

by Judge Arnold O. Jones in Sampson County Superior Court. 

Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General 

Thomas J. Campbell, for the State. 

Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate 

Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant. 

HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.

Bobby Glenn Autry (“Defendant”) appeals from judgments 

entered upon his convictions of three counts of felony 

possession of immediate precursor chemical with the intent to 

manufacture methamphetamine1 (pseudoephedrine, sulfuric acid, and

 

1 While the judgment in 12 CRS 1594 and 50684 states “Poss/Dist 

Precursor Chemical (pseudoephedrine)” and “Poss/Dist Precursor 

Chemical (sulfuric acid)” respectively, the indictments and jury 
-2-

ethyl ether), one count of trafficking in methamphetamine, one 

count of possession of methamphetamine, and one count of 

possession of drug paraphernalia. After careful review, we find 

no error.

The State’s evidence tended to show the following facts. 

Defendant resided with his mother in a mobile home that was a 

two minute walk from his sister Wanda King’s residence.

Detective William Carr of the Sampson County Sherriff’s Office 

drove to Ms. King’s residence to determine if a stolen tractor 

was on the premises. Upon arrival, the detective saw a metal 

building located behind Ms. King’s residence with a surveillance 

camera attached to it. He approached the building and found the

door was locked. Defendant was standing inside the building at 

the sink. When Defendant saw the detective, he immediately 

opened the door. At that point, several agents from the 

sheriff’s office arrived on the scene to assist Detective Carr.

After obtaining consent from Ms. King, the officers assisted 

with Detective Carr’s search for stolen property by examining 

the inside and surroundings of the metal building. They found 

 

instructions were for possession of precursor chemical

(pseudoephedrine; sulfuric acid) with intent to manufacture 

methamphetamine. 
-3-

47 items of evidence consistent with the manufacture of 

methamphetamine, including pseudoephedrine tablets. 

Defendant was charged with four counts of possession of 

precursor chemical (ethyl ether, sulfuric acid, pseudoephedrine, 

lithium); trafficking in methamphetamine; possession of drug 

paraphernalia; possession of methamphetamine; and manufacture of 

methamphetamine. The charge of manufacturing methamphetamine 

was dismissed for insufficient evidence and Defendant was found 

not guilty of possession of precursor chemical (lithium) with 

intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The trial court 

consolidated 12 CRS 1594 and 50684 and sentenced Defendant to 17 

to 30 months in prison for possession of precursor chemicals

(pseudoephedrine and sulfuric acid) with intent to manufacture 

methamphetamine. That sentence ran consecutively to Defendant’s

70 to 84 month term for trafficking, 17 to 30 month term for 

possession of ethyl ether with intent to manufacture 

methamphetamine, 60-day term for possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and 17 to 30 month sentence, suspended for 36 

months of supervised probation, for possession of 

methamphetamine.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court 

erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of felony 
-4-

possession of precursor chemical pseudoephedrine with the intent 

to manufacture methamphetamine under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-

95(d1)(2)(a) (2013). We disagree.

“Upon review of a motion to dismiss, the court determines 

whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the State, of each essential element of the offense 

charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the 

offense.” State v. Lane, 163 N.C. App 495, 499, 594 S.E.2d 107, 

110 (2004). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as 

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585,

587 (1984). “[T]he State is entitled to every reasonable 

intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom; 

contradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and 

do not warrant dismissal[.]” State v. Hill, 365 N.C. 273, 275, 

715 S.E.2d 841, 843 (2011) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). 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 for nonsuit should be allowed. This is true even 

though the suspicion so aroused by the evidence is strong.” In 
-5-

re Vinson, 298 N.C. 640, 656–57, 260 S.E.2d 591, 602 (1979) 

(citation omitted). 

It is unlawful to (1) possess a precursor chemical with (2)

intent to manufacture methamphetamine. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §

90-95(d1)(2)(a). Defendant is not challenging his constructive 

possession of pseudoephedrine, an identified controlled 

substance and precursor chemical. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 90-95 

(d2)(37), 90-87(5) (2013). Instead, Defendant argues that

because he was acquitted of possession of lithium with intent to 

manufacture methamphetamine, and because there was no evidence 

that he possessed ammonia, the State’s evidence was insufficient 

to show that he possessed the pseudoephedrine tablets with 

intent to manufacture methamphetamine rather than for personal 

use. We are not persuaded. 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90–87 (15) (2013) defines “manufacture” 

as:

the production, preparation, propagation, 

compounding, conversion, or processing of a 

controlled substance by any means, whether 

directly or indirectly, artificially or 

naturally, or by extraction from substances 

of a natural origin, or independently by 

means of chemical synthesis, or by a 

combination of extraction and chemical 

synthesis; and “manufacture” further 

includes any packaging or repackaging of the 

substance or labeling or relabeling of its 

container except that this term does not 
-6-

include the preparation or compounding of a 

controlled substance by an individual for 

his own use[.]

Our Supreme Court has stated that “[i]ntent is an attitude or 

emotion of the mind and is seldom, if ever, susceptible of proof 

by direct evidence, it must ordinarily be proven by 

circumstantial evidence, i.e., by facts and circumstances from 

which it may be inferred.” State v. Gammons, 260 N.C. 753, 756, 

133 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1963); see also State v. Alderson, 173 N.C. 

App. 344, 348, 618 S.E.2d 844, 847 (2005) (holding that intent 

to manufacture, sell and deliver methamphetamine could be

inferred by circumstantial evidence including “numerous items . 

. . consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine.”). 

Here, taken in the light most favorable to the State, we 

conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence from which 

a reasonable juror could infer an intent to manufacture 

methamphetamine. First, the State submitted into evidence a

laboratory report which stated that the chemical makeup of all 

the methamphetamine found in the metal building included 

pseudoephedrine. Second, SBI Special Agent Amanda Aharon, a 

forensic chemist, testified and confirmed that the 

methamphetamine recovered from Defendant was manufactured using 

the ammonia method, which requires ethyl ether, sulfuric acid, 
-7-

pseudoephedrine, ammonia, and lithium. Additionally, Defendant, 

a self-identified methamphetamine cook and user, was convicted 

of possession of ethyl ether and sulfuric acid with intent to 

manufacture methamphetamine, and lithium batteries were found 

close to the pseudoephedrine tablets. Furthermore, the 

pseudoephedrine tablets were found in the same location as: 

multiple zip-loc plastic bags, 5 containers of salt, drain 

cleaner, 3 containers of starter fluid, 2 containers of 

isopropyl and denatured alcohol, coffee filters, 3 funnels, a 

large amount of plastic tubing, plastic pitchers, plastic 

gloves, 2 propane cylinders with torches, a fire extinguisher, 2 

digital scales, burnt aluminum foil, and multiple caps and 

containers, all of which are items associated with the 

manufacture of methamphetamine. 

Given the substantial number of incriminating items found 

with the pseudoephedrine, as well as Defendant’s admission that 

he was a methamphetamine cook, we conclude there was sufficient 

evidence for a jury to reasonably infer Defendant possessed the 

pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,

rather than merely for personal use. Accordingly, we hold the 

trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. 
-8-

NO ERROR. 

Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).