State v. Robinson
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA19-405 Filed: 18 February 2020 Henderson County, No. 17 CRS052480 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTINA LEIGH ROBINSON Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 28 September 2018 by Judge R. Gregory Horne in Superior Court, Henderson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 October 2019. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Donna B. Wojcik, for the State. Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kathryn L. VandenBerg, for defendant-appellant. STROUD, Judge. Defendant appeals her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Because the State failed to present substantial evidence of each element of aiding and abetting the commission of the robbery with a dangerous weapon, the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. We therefore reverse. STATE V. ROBINSON Opinion of the Court Defendant was tried jointly with the father of her child, Mr. Samuel Angram. Both were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a dangerous weapon based upon the robbery of Mr. Marvin Price. Mr. Angram’s brother, Michael Angram was convicted of the armed robbery in a trial before the trial of defendant and Samuel Angram. Both defendant and Samuel Angram were convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon based upon aiding and abetting Michael Angram; both were acquitted of conspiracy to commit robbery. We addressed Mr. Samuel Angram’s appeal in State v. Angram, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2020) (COA19-151), and reversed his conviction based upon insufficiency of the evidence. Here too, defendant contends the evidence against her was insufficient. The evidence against defendant here was the same as that against Mr. Angram. There is no material difference between the legal or evidentiary issues raised by defendant and Mr. Angram. Based on Angram, we reverse. See id. Because we are reversing defendant’s conviction based upon insufficiency of the evidence, we need not address defendant’s other issues on appeal. REVERSED. Judges ZACHARY and MURPHY concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -2-
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.
