State v Johnson
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1694 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 December 2004 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Cumberland County No. 02 CRS 53465 WALKER JOHNSON, III Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 4 September 2003 by Judge James Floyd Ammons, Jr. in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 September 2004. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Marc Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Samuel L. Bridges, for defendant-appellant. WYNN, Judge. Defendant Walker Johnson, III appeals from his conviction of felony possession of cocaine. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing possession of cocaine to go to the jury as a felony, contending that the offense is instead a misdemeanor. Defendant bases this assertion on State v. Jones, 161 N.C. App. 60, 588 S.E.2d 5 (2003), and State v. Sneed, 161 N.C. App. 331, 588 S.E.2d 74 (2003). Consequently, Defendant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence Defendant as an habitual felon pursuant to a conviction of felonious possession of cocaine. We disagree. -2Both Jones and Sneed were unambiguously overruled by our Supreme Court, which held that possession of cocaine is a felony and therefore can serve as an underlying felony to an habitual felon indictment. State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 473, 476, 598 S.E.2d 125, 127 (2004); State v. Sneed, 358 N.C. 538, 599 S.E.2d 365 (2004). his Defendant has failed to present supporting arguments for other abandoned. assignments of error; they are therefore deemed N.C. R. App. P. 28(a); State v. Prevatte, 356 N.C. 178, 214, 570 S.E.2d 440, 460 (2002). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm judgment and dismiss the instant appeal. Affirmed. Judges HUNTER and THORNBURG 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.
