State v Smith
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA11-362 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 November 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Guilford County Nos. 09 CRS 95759 10 CRS 24016 STEVEN DASHAWN SMITH Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 26 April 2010 by Judge L. Todd Burke in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 November 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy General Mary Louise Lucasse, for the State. Attorney Eric A. Bach for Defendant-Appellant. McGEE, Judge. Steven entered Dashawn after a Smith (Defendant) conviction of appeals maintaining a from judgment dwelling for controlled substances. Defendant pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status. Defendant contends that the trial court erred motion by denying dwelling charge. his to We find no error. dismiss the maintaining a -2The Greensboro Police Department executed a search warrant at a single-family home located at 708 Tuscaloosa Street Greensboro After attempted on 12 to October force open 2009. the door, officers Defendant's in initially girlfriend, Tamekia Rogers (Ms. Rogers), allowed them to enter the home. Defendant, who was the target of the investigation, was also present. In the kitchen, officers found a black digital scale with cut marks and off-white residue flakes on it. Officers also found an "off-white rock substance" on the bedroom floor. Karen Stossmeister, a forensic chemist with the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), testified that bedroom was 0.1 gram of cocaine. the substance from the Officers also found a loaded handgun in a coat pocket in the bedroom closet. Officer Charles Parker (Officer Parker) testified that after Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, he admitted he was a drug dealer and that he made about $300.00 to $400.00 per week selling drugs. When Officer Parker searched Defendant, he found $450.00 in cash in Defendant's pocket. In Defendant's affidavit seeking appointed counsel, he listed "708 Tuscalousa [sic] St." as his address, and indicated that he paid $350.00 per month in rent. affidavit into At trial, the State introduced Defendant's evidence. Both Defendant and Ms. Rogers -3testified at trial, and each denied that Defendant lived in the home at the time of the search. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. jury found Defendant guilty controlled substances. of maintaining a dwelling The for Defendant pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status, and the trial court imposed a term of 90 to 117 months in prison. In his sole Defendant appeals. argument on appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances because the State presented insufficient evidence that Defendant resided in the home or intended to sell drugs. We disagree. "When a defendant moves to dismiss a charge against him on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine 'whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.'" State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412, 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Substantial 543 evidence U.S. is 1156, 161 "relevant L. Ed. evidence 2d that 122 a (2005). reasonable person might accept as adequate, or would consider necessary to support a particular conclusion." Id. -4"'In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving inferences.]" 866, 869 the State the benefit of all reasonable State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 596, 573 S.E.2d (2002) (citation omitted). "'Contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal of the case but are for the jury to resolve.'" Id. (citation omitted). A defendant's evidence is not to be considered, "unless it tends to explain or make clear that offered by the State." State v. Oldham, 224 N.C. 415, 416, 30 S.E.2d 318, 320 (1944). In charge determining of whether maintaining a the State's dwelling, a evidence court supports must a consider "ownership of the property; occupancy of the property; repairs to the property; payment of taxes; payment of utility expenses; payment of repair expenses; and payment of rent." State v. Bowens, 140 N.C. App. 217, 221, 535 S.E.2d 870, 873 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 383, 547 S.E.2d 417 (2001). "In determining whether a defendant maintained a dwelling for the purpose of selling illegal drugs, this Court has looked at factors including the amount of drugs present and paraphernalia found in the dwelling." State v. Battle, 167 N.C. App. 730, 734, 606 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2005) (emphasis omitted). -5In this case, we supports the State's dwelling for the hold that contention purpose of the that evidence Defendant selling controlled sufficiently maintained a substances. Officers found cocaine in the bedroom when they executed the search warrant. Although it was a small amount of cocaine, officers also found a digital scale in the kitchen, and the scale had cut marks and residue flakes on it. In addition, officers found a loaded handgun in a pocket of a coat hanging in the bedroom closet. Following the search, Defendant admitted he sold drugs to earn $300.00 or $400.00 per week, and officers found $450.00 in cash in Defendant's pocket when they searched him. Finally, Defendant signed an affidavit in which he stated he lived at the residence where the drugs and paraphernalia were found, and that he paid the rent. Although Defendant's trial testimony contradicts some of this evidence, that contradiction was an issue for the jury to resolve. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. No error. Judges ELMORE and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
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.
