State v Nelson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA08-490 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 November 2008 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County Nos. 06 CRS 031286 06 CRS 054388 GLENDELL SATINI NELSON Court of Appeals Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 January 2008 by Judge William Z. Wood, Jr. in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 2008. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John F. Oates, Jr. for the State. Slip Opinion John Keating Wiles for defendant-appellant. TYSON, Judge. Glendell Satini Nelson ( defendant ) appeals from judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to: (1) possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1) and (2) attaining habitual felon status pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.1. We affirm. I. Background At approximately 9:30 a.m. on 6 April 2006, Winston-Salem Police Sergeant Steven Tollie ( Sergeant Tollie ) and Triad Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission Agent Debra McClaren ( Agent McClaren ) were working a drug interdiction patrol at the Innkeeper -2Motel in Winston-Salem. Sergeant Tollie drove around the secluded upper parking lot of the motel where several drug transactions had been previously discovered. While patrolling the lot, Sergeant Tollie noticed a male, who was later identified as Lenoir Stevens ( Stevens ), sitting in a car in the parking lot. Sergeant Tollie parked his patrol car, went into the motel s lobby, and positioned himself to monitor Stevens s activities. After approximately five minutes, Sergeant Tollie observed defendant leave Room 514, walk through the lobby and parking lot to Stevens s vehicle. Defendant and Stevens appeared to be talking through the driver s side window. Defendant then walked back toward the lobby door, visually scanned the lobby, and walked back to Stevens s car. engage in a Sergeant Tollie observed Stevens and defendant hand-to-hand exchange concealed by defendant s hand. of some unidentified item After the exchange, defendant re- entered the lobby of the motel and returned to Room 514. Sergeant Tollie followed defendant and stopped defendant at the door of Room 514. Sergeant Tollie asked defendant to identify the individual in the vehicle and explain what had transpired. Defendant stated he had exchanged a room key. Sergeant Tollie asked defendant if he possessed any drugs, large amounts of currency, or weapons in the motel room. Defendant stated there were no drugs in the motel room and gave Sergeant Tollie permission to search his motel room. Sergeant Tollie then asked defendant if he had any drugs, large amounts of currency, or weapons on his person. Defendant reached into his front pockets -3and pulled them inside out. the floor. A lighter and several coins fell to Sergeant Tollie noticed that defendant was palming a plastic bag in his left hand. The plastic bag contained an off- white substance that Sergeant Tollie recognized as crack cocaine. Sergeant Tollie reached out, grabbed defendant s left wrist, twisted defendant s arm behind his back, and forced him to the floor. As defendant landed, the plastic bag fell on the floor next to defendant s feet. Agent McClaren arrived at the scene and Sergeant Tollie instructed her to take possession of the plastic bag. Defendant was subsequently placed under arrest. Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and attaining habitual felon status. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence seized as a result of the stop and search of his person. motion was heard on 14 January 2008. Defendant s Following the hearing, the trial court denied defendant s motion to suppress. Defendant entered a guilty plea to both charges, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 93 months and a maximum term of 121 months imprisonment. II. Defendant appeals. Issue Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because Sergeant Tollie possessed neither probable cause nor a reasonable articulable suspicion investigatory stop. III. Motion to Suppress to conduct an -4A. Standard of Review Review of a trial court s denial of a defendant s motion to suppress is strictly limited to determining whether the trial court s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which case they are binding on appeal, and in turn, whether those findings support the trial court s conclusions of law. State v. Corpening, 109 N.C. App. 586, 587 88, 427 S.E.2d 892, 893 (1993). B. Analysis This Court has stated: It is well established that an officer may undertake an investigatory stop of a person, so long as that officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is engaged in criminal activity. Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances the whole picture in making the determination as to whether a reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop existed at the time the stop was made. The totality of the circumstances test must be viewed through the prism of a reasonable police officer standard; that is, the reviewing court must take into account an officer s training and experience. Thus, a police officer must have developed more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch before an investigatory stop may occur. State v. Willis, 125 N.C. App. 537, 541, 481 S.E.2d 407, 410 (1997) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, Sergeant Tollie, a veteran police officer with nine years experience in the narcotics division, testified: (1) the Innkeeper Motel was monitored daily for drug activity; (2) the upper parking lot where Stevens was parked was secluded; (3) Sergeant Tollie had previously discovered several drug transactions -5in the upper parking lot; (4) while defendant appeared to talk to Stevens, defendant continuously looked back into the lobby, and walked back to the lobby s entrance to visually scan the inside; (5) defendant returned to Stevens s vehicle; and (6) defendant and Stevens engaged in a hand-to-hand exchange of an unidentified item concealed by defendant s appeared nervous. hand. Upon questioning, defendant As defendant pulled his hands from his pockets, Sergeant Tollie observed defendant attempt to conceal crack cocaine. Based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable articulable suspicion existed that defendant engaged in criminal activity; i.e., defendant transaction with Stevens. had Id. stop of defendant was lawful. conducted some type of drug Sergeant Tollie s investigatory This assignment of error is overruled. IV. Conclusion The trial court did not err in denying defendant s motion to suppress. Competent evidence established Sergeant Tollie conducted a lawful investigatory stop based upon a reasonable suspicion that defendant had engaged in criminal activity. order is affirmed. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and ARROWOOD concur. Report per Rule 30(e). The trial court s
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
