State v. Curtis Mario Benton

 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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA13-1204-2 Filed: 18 August 2015 Guilford County, No. 12CRS74220 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS MARIO BENTON, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from order entered 25 April 2013 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey and judgment entered 25 April 2013 by Judge David L. Hall in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 February 2014. By unpublished opinion entered 3 June 2014, a unanimous panel of this Court reversed in part the order entered and vacated in part the judgment. State v. Benton, ___ N.C. App. ___ , 762 S.E.2d 1, 2014, N.C. App. LEXIS 596 (2014) (unpublished). By order entered 11 June 2015, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of this Court and “remanded to [this] court for reconsideration in light of” its holding in the companion case, State v. Jackson, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 446 (N.C., June 11, 2015). State v. Benton, ___ N.C. ___, 772 S.E.2d 238, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 445 (N.C., June 11, 2015). Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Derrick C. Mertz, for the State. Mark L. Hayes for Defendant. STATE V. BENTON Opinion of the Court DILLON, Judge. This case comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which reversed this Court’s prior decision, for the purpose of considering the issues raised in Defendant’s original appeal based on its holding in the companion case of State v. Jackson, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 446 (N.C., June 11, 2015). Jackson and the present case arose from the same event. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Benton were stopped and searched by a police officer; and, based on items seized during that search, Mr. Jackson was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and conspiracy to possess with intent to sell or deliver marijuana. Id. *1. In his case, Mr. Jackson moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop, which was denied by the trial court. Id. On appeal, this Court by a 2-1 vote, reversed the trial court’s denial of Mr. Jackson’s motion to suppress based on the lack of reasonable suspicion for the officer to conduct the stop and search. State v. Jackson, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 758 S.E.2d 39, 45-46 (2014). In reversing this holding, our Supreme Court determined that the unchallenged findings of fact “create reasonable suspicion to justify the initial investigatory stop of [Mr. Jackson],” noting that in addition to Mr. Jackson’s and Mr. Benton’s presence in “a high crime or high drug area,” they also were “in a specific -2- STATE V. BENTON Opinion of the Court location known for hand-to-hand drug transactions that had been the site of many narcotics investigations; [Messrs. Jackson] and Benton split up and walked in opposite directions upon seeing a marked police vehicle approach; they came back very near to the same location once the patrol car passed; and they walked apart a second time upon seeing [the officer’s] return.” Jackson, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 446 *9-10. Here, Defendant Benton’s charges were based on evidence obtained as a result of the same stop and search circumstances, as analyzed in Jackson. Benton, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 445 *1. Defendant Benton filed a motion to suppress similar to that filed by Mr. Jackson in Jackson and the trial court denied this motion based on findings similar to those made by the trial court in Jackson, concluding that there was reasonable suspicion for the officer to stop and search Defendant Benton. Id.1 While reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant Benton pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana and to possession of marijuana on the premises of a local confinement facility. Id. *1. On appeal, this Court, in reversing the trial court’s denial of Defendant Benton’s motion to suppress and vacating his convictions, held that “we are bound by our decision in Jackson, where this Court, by a 2-1 vote, held that [the officer’s] investigatory stop was 1 Specifically, the trial court found, inter alia, that Officer Brown was on patrol in a high crime and high drug activity area; when Officer Brown initially observed Defendant Benton and the other person (Defendant Jackson) they split up when his police car came into view; upon coming back to the same place, Officer Brown observed that the two persons “had reassembled at approximately the same location in front of the store”; and when they observed Officer Brown a second time they reacted again by separating and walking in opposite directions. -3- STATE V. BENTON Opinion of the Court invalid[,]” noting that even though Defendant Benton and “Mr. Jackson were ultimately searched by different officers, they were both initially stopped by the same officer, at the same time, under the same circumstances.” Id. at *3 (emphasis in original). Based on the similarity of the circumstances and facts of this case with Jackson, the findings made by the trial court in denying his motion to dismiss, and our Supreme Court’s determination in Jackson that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop and search, upon reconsideration we affirm the trial court’s denial of Defendant Benton’s motion to suppress.2 AFFIRMED. Judges BRYANT and STEPHENS concur. Report per Rule 30(e). 2 In his initial brief before this Court, Defendant Benton challenged several of the trial court’s findings of fact, none of which challenge the relevant findings, as found by our Supreme Court in Jackson, to support a reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop and search of either defendant. -4-

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.