Court Opinion

ID: 9578598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:43.055262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:50.983678
License: Public Domain

JOHN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds the State’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 7A-49.3 mandates reversal of defendant’s conviction of violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-543.1 respectfully disagree and therefore dissent.
Initially and parenthetically, I note the majority posits its conclusion the State failed to comply with G.S. § 7A-49.3 in part upon the failure of the record to reflect the date defendant’s case was docketed. Further, in footnote three, the majority cites defendant’s assertion that the record contains no evidence that he or his counsel received notice of the 28 September 1998 calendar. These circumstances simply highlight the absolute necessity that parties to an appeal include within the record all pertinent information.
In any event, the majority properly sets out the elements of a violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-543. Contrary to the majority, however, I believe the instant record contains sufficient evidence of each element to send the case to the jury.
*49Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, see State v. Whitaker, 316 N.C. 515, 519, 342 S.E.2d 514, 517 (1986) (citation omitted) (“[i]n considering the sufficiency of the evidence to survive a motion to dismiss, ‘the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and inference to be drawn therefrom’ ”), the evidence at trial tended to show the following: Defendant was released following his arrest on a felony charge upon posting a secured appearance bond. The release order, signed by the processing magistrate, directed defendant to appear “at all subsequent continued dates.”
In addition, defendant signed the appearance bond, likewise processed by a magistrate, acknowledging the release condition that he
shall appear in the above entitled action(s) whenever required and will at all times remain amendable to the orders and processes of the Court.
Defendant’s case was set for 21 August 1998 in Buncombe County District Court. Defendant was represented by counsel, a preliminary hearing was waived, and the case transferred to superior court. Following return of a true bill of indictment, the case was placed on a 28 September 1998 calendar, published 25 September 1998 and listing defendant’s district court counsel as his attorney. Defendant did not appear at the 28 September 1998 term of superior court, an order for his arrest was issued, and an indictment charging defendant with failure to appear in violation of G.S. § 15A-543 was returned 2 November 1998.
Defendant subsequently was brought into the Greenville County, South Carolina, Detention Center on 20 June 1999 and released to be returned to Buncombe County on 3 August 1999. Testimony by a law enforcement officer indicated defendant had stated he was the “vending machine bandit” and that he had been hiding out in a Motel 6 in South Carolina for nearly one year.
Our Supreme Court has observed that
“An appearance bond by its terms, and under the uniform ruling of the Court, requires that the defendant appear term after term until he is discharged on a verdict of acquittal or by order of the court. An appearance bond is in lieu of custody in jail, in which *50case the defendant could not be released until discharged by order of the court.”
State v. Mallory, 266 N.C. 31, 42, 145 S.E.2d 335, 343 (1965) (quoting State v. Eure, 172 N.C. 874, 875, 89 S.E. 788, 789 (1916)), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 928, 16 L. Ed. 2d 531 (1966).
Further,
[a] recognizance for the appearance of the defendant at the next term of the court to be held for a given county is valid and binds the defendant to appear at the next term and at the court house; although neither time nor place be specifically named; because every one knows, or is presumed to know, the time and place of holding the court.
State v. Houston, 74 N.C. 174, 176,-S.E.-, — (1876).
Finally,
“[wjillful” as used in criminal statutes means the wrongful doing of an act without justification or excuse, or the commission of an act purposely and deliberately in violation of the law. “Wilfulness” is a state of mind which is seldom capable of direct proof, but which must be inferred from the circumstances of the particular case.
State v. Davis, 86 N.C. App. 25, 30, 356 S.E.2d 607, 610, stay allowed, 320 N.C. 172, 357 S.E.2d 172 (1987) (citations omitted).
Applying the foregoing evidence and legal principles to the elements of the offense of Failure to Appear under G.S. § 15A-543 (section violated by person released on felony charge “who wilfully fails to appear before any court or judicial official as required”), it appears defendant was released from custody on a felony charge, was directed by a judicial official to appear at all continued dates, acknowledged before a judicial official his responsibility to appear whenever required and to remain amenable to the processes of the court, failed to appear on the date the case was calendared in Buncombe County Superior Court, and wilfully “hid out” in South Carolina until arrested nearly one year later. Further, the record contains no indication either defendant or his counsel sought at any time to have his failure to appear excused or the order for arrest stricken on grounds of lack of notice or improper calendaring.
*51I also note that the General Assembly has neither provided that violation of G.S. § 7A-49.3 constitutes an element of the offense of Failure to Appear under G.S. § 15A-543 nor has it required, notwithstanding the majority opinion herein, that the State’s violation of G.S. § 7A-49.3 mandates dismissal of any subsequent G.S. § 15A-543 charge of Failure to Appear. Had the General Assembly so intended, “ ‘it would have been a simple matter [for it] to [have] include[d],’ ” State v. Reaves, - N.C. App.-,-, 544 S.E.2d 253, 258 (2001) (quoting In re Appeal of Bass Income Fund, 115 N.C. App. 703, 706, 446 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1994)), such provisions within the statutes.
In sum, I believe the evidence presented was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion to dismiss and that no error was committed in defendant’s trial. I note the State agrees with defendant’s further contention that there exists a discrepancy in the sentence imposed and that this case must be remanded for re-sentencing. Defendant and the State are correct. I therefore vote no error in the trial, but to vacate the judgment and remand for re-sentencing.