State v. Autry
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-218 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 August 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Sampson County Nos. 12 CRS 1593-5; 50683-4 BOBBY GLENN AUTRY Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 30 October 2013 by Judge Arnold O. Jones in Sampson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas J. Campbell, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Bobby entered Glenn upon his Autry ( Defendant ) convictions of appeals three from counts judgments of felony possession of immediate precursor chemical with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine1 (pseudoephedrine, sulfuric acid, and 1 While the judgment in 12 CRS 1594 and 50684 states Poss/Dist Precursor Chemical (pseudoephedrine) and Poss/Dist Precursor Chemical (sulfuric acid) respectively, the indictments and jury -2ethyl ether), one count of trafficking in methamphetamine, one count of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia. and one count of After careful review, we find no error. The State s evidence tended to show the following facts. Defendant resided with his mother in a mobile home that was a two minute walk from his sister Wanda King s residence. Detective William Carr of the Sampson County Sherriff s Office drove to Ms. King s residence to determine if a stolen tractor was on the premises. Upon arrival, the detective saw a metal building located behind Ms. King s residence with a surveillance camera attached to it. He approached the building and found the door was locked. Defendant was standing inside the building at the sink. When Defendant saw the detective, opened door. the At that point, several he immediately agents from the sheriff s office arrived on the scene to assist Detective Carr. After obtaining consent from Ms. King, the officers assisted with Detective Carr s search for stolen property by examining the inside and surroundings of the metal building. They found instructions were for possession of precursor chemical (pseudoephedrine; sulfuric acid) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. -347 items of evidence consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine, including pseudoephedrine tablets. Defendant was charged with four counts of possession of precursor chemical (ethyl ether, sulfuric acid, pseudoephedrine, lithium); trafficking in methamphetamine; possession of drug paraphernalia; possession of methamphetamine; and manufacture of methamphetamine. The charge of manufacturing methamphetamine was dismissed for insufficient evidence and Defendant was found not guilty of possession of precursor chemical (lithium) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The trial court consolidated 12 CRS 1594 and 50684 and sentenced Defendant to 17 to 30 months in prison for possession of precursor chemicals (pseudoephedrine and sulfuric acid) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. That sentence ran consecutively to Defendant s 70 to 84 month term for trafficking, 17 to 30 month term for possession of ethyl methamphetamine, 60-day ether term with for intent to possession manufacture of drug paraphernalia, and 17 to 30 month sentence, suspended for 36 months of supervised probation, for possession of methamphetamine. Defendant s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of felony -4possession of precursor chemical pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine 95(d1)(2)(a) (2013). under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90- We disagree. Upon review of a motion to dismiss, the court determines whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, of each essential element of the offense charged and offense. of being the perpetrator of the Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as reasonable conclusion. 587 defendant State v. Lane, 163 N.C. App 495, 499, 594 S.E.2d 107, 110 (2004). a the mind might accept as adequate to support a State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, (1984). [T]he State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom; contradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal[.] 715 S.E.2d omitted). suspicion 841, If or 843 the State v. Hill, 365 N.C. 273, 275, (2011) evidence conjecture as (citation is to and sufficient either the quotation only to commission marks raise of a the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion for nonsuit should be allowed. This is true even though the suspicion so aroused by the evidence is strong. In -5re Vinson, 298 N.C. 640, 656 57, 260 S.E.2d 591, 602 (1979) (citation omitted). It is unlawful to (1) possess a precursor chemical with (2) intent to manufacture methamphetamine. 90-95(d1)(2)(a). possession of Defendant is not challenging his constructive pseudoephedrine, substance and precursor chemical. (d2)(37), See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-87(5) (2013). an identified controlled See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 90-95 Instead, Defendant argues that because he was acquitted of possession of lithium with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and because there was no evidence that he possessed ammonia, the State s evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed the pseudoephedrine tablets with intent to manufacture methamphetamine rather than for personal use. We are not persuaded. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90 87 (15) (2013) defines manufacture as: the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance by any means, whether directly or indirectly, artificially or naturally, or by extraction from substances of a natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis; and manufacture further includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container except that this term does not -6include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his own use[.] Our Supreme Court has stated that [i]ntent is an attitude or emotion of the mind and is seldom, if ever, susceptible of proof by direct evidence, it must ordinarily be proven by circumstantial evidence, i.e., by facts and circumstances from which it may be inferred. State v. Gammons, 260 N.C. 753, 756, 133 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1963); see also State v. Alderson, 173 N.C. App. 344, 348, 618 S.E.2d 844, 847 (2005) (holding that intent to manufacture, sell and deliver methamphetamine could be inferred by circumstantial evidence including numerous items . . . consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine. ). Here, taken in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror methamphetamine. could infer an intent to manufacture First, the State submitted into evidence a laboratory report which stated that the chemical makeup of all the methamphetamine pseudoephedrine. forensic found in the metal building included Second, SBI Special Agent Amanda Aharon, a chemist, testified and confirmed that the methamphetamine recovered from Defendant was manufactured using the ammonia method, which requires ethyl ether, sulfuric acid, -7pseudoephedrine, ammonia, and lithium. Additionally, Defendant, a self-identified methamphetamine cook and user, was convicted of possession of ethyl ether and sulfuric acid with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and lithium batteries were found close to the pseudoephedrine pseudoephedrine tablets multiple zip-loc cleaner, 3 were plastic containers tablets. found bags, of 5 in Furthermore, the same containers starter fluid, location of 2 the salt, as: drain containers of isopropyl and denatured alcohol, coffee filters, 3 funnels, a large amount of plastic tubing, plastic pitchers, plastic gloves, 2 propane cylinders with torches, a fire extinguisher, 2 digital scales, containers, all burnt of aluminum which foil, are and items multiple associated caps and with the manufacture of methamphetamine. Given the substantial number of incriminating items found with the pseudoephedrine, as well as Defendant s admission that he was a methamphetamine cook, we conclude there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably infer Defendant possessed the pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture rather than merely for personal use. trial court dismiss. did not err by denying methamphetamine, Accordingly, we hold the Defendant s motion to -8NO ERROR. Judges BRYANT and STROUD 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.
