Case Name: State of North Carolina v. Shamele Collins
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 2016-09-23
Citations: 791 S.E.2d 458
Docket Number: No. 66A16
Parties: State of North Carolina
v.
Shamele Collins
Judges: 
Reporter: South Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 791
Pages: 458–458

Head Matter:
State of North Carolina
v.
Shamele Collins
No. 66A16
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Filed September 23, 2016
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Douglas W. Corkhill, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
Erik R. Zimmerman, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court based upon a dissent at the Court of Appeals. State v. Collins , - N.C.App. -, -, 782 S.E.2d 350, 360-62 (2016). The majority at the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest, concluding, inter alia , that "defendant failed to raise the timing of [the police officer's] observation of powder on the floor" before the trial court. Id. at -, 782 S.E.2d at 358. We agree that defendant failed to preserve his timing argument for appeal because he did not raise this argument before the trial court. See State v. Eason , 328 N.C. 409, 420, 402 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1991) ("In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.") (citing N.C. R. App. P. 10(b) ) (recodified 2009 as N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) ). We therefore modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals solely on this ground. The remaining issue addressed in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning defendant's right to be present at sentencing is unchallenged and unaffected by our decision.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.