State v. Currin

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA25-360

Filed 3 December 2025

Johnston County, Nos. 23CR266278-500, 23CR004343-500, 23CR004344-500

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

DONALD WESLEY CURRIN, JR.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 July 2024 by Judge Thomas H.

Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

18 November 2025.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General William L.

Flowers, III, for the State.

Richard J. Costanza for defendant-appellant.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

Donald Wesley Currin Jr. (“defendant”) appeals from judgment entered

18 July 2024 upon his conviction of: (1) possession of a firearm by a felon; (2) felony

possession of cocaine; and (3) attaining habitual felon status. Defendant argues that

he received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, we discern

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

no prejudicial error and affirm defendant’s convictions.

I. Background

On 25 March 2023, defendant was at the home of his girlfriend, Melissa Oakley

(“Oakley”). Defendant did not reside in the home but often spent nights there and

had a set of keys to the residence. When Oakley arrived home that evening,

defendant was sitting on the back porch. He was intoxicated and drinking from a

fifth of Evan Williams. Oakley drank a few shots of Crown Apple soon after she got

home.

Later that evening, Oakley shouted at defendant to go inside and “popped” him

on the face. According to Oakley, defendant then picked her up by the throat,

slammed her into the ground, pulled a gun out from his right side, and pointed the

gun at her face. Oakley’s son, Kalup Seaberry (“Kalup”), saw the altercation and

alerted Oakley’s mother, Tammy Pruitt (“Pruitt”). Pruitt went outside to the back

porch while Kalup called 911.

Deputy Sherriff Cobi Taylor responded to the call. Deputy Taylor had several

years of experience and training in law enforcement, including in narcotics and

responding to domestic calls. When he arrived, Deputy Taylor saw defendant on the

back porch wearing a t-shirt with the words “Fuquay Gun and Gold.” Another officer

searched the outside of a shed in the backyard and found a handgun with a brown

holster, an AR-styled rifle, a shotgun, and two bolt-action rifles. Additionally, officers

found a pellet gun and a bag that contained several magazines for a handgun by the

-2-

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

porch where defendant had been sitting. When asked about the firearms, defendant

was adamant that they did not belong to him.

Deputy Taylor then placed defendant under arrest for assault by pointing a

gun and possession of a firearm by a felon. Deputy Taylor proceeded to search

defendant and found a small bag containing a white powdery substance in his wallet.

A field test of the powder and later State Crime Lab analysis confirmed it was cocaine.

Defendant was silent during his arrest and made no statements about the cocaine.

The case came on for trial on 15 July 2024 and the State presented testimony

from several witnesses and officers. Kalup and Pruitt both testified that they saw

defendant point a handgun at Oakley and had seen defendant with the same handgun

and holster earlier in the day. Additionally, Oakley testified that prior to the

incident, she had seen defendant with the handgun and that it was normal for

defendant to have that handgun and holster on him. Oakley also denied having any

knowledge of the firearms found by her shed and admitted to not being allowed to

legally possess firearms.

Deputy Taylor testified about his observations that night and the process

surrounding defendant’s initial appearance before the magistrate. He stated “[t]he

magistrate either finds probable cause or not probable cause to charge the

defendant. . . . in this case the magistrate found probable cause to charge

[defendant].” Additionally, Deputy Taylor testified about defendant’s silence when

he was arrested and the cocaine was found. The State then emphasized that

-3-

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

testimony in its closing argument, telling the jury that defendant was silent because

“he knows it’s in there . . . He knows he has that cocaine. He doesn’t put up a fuss

about it, and he certainly has the power and control and disposition of its use.”

Defendant’s attorney did not object to Deputy Taylor’s testimony about the

magistrate and defendant’s silence nor the State’s closing argument.

On 18 July 2024, the jury found defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by

a felon and felony possession of cocaine. The jury found defendant not guilty of

assault by a pointed gun. Defendant pled guilty to attaining habitual felon status.

Defendant filed notice of appeal to this court on 23 July 2024.

II. Discussion

Defendant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his

attorney failed to object to Deputy Taylor’s testimony about the magistrate’s finding

of probable cause and defendant’s silence during his arrest, as well as the State’s

closing argument that defendant’s silence indicated that he was guilty of possession

of cocaine. In response, the State argues that defendant’s claim is premature and

fails to demonstrate prejudice.

A. Standard of Review

This Court applies a de novo standard of review when assessing ineffective

assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. State v. Wilson, 236 N.C. App. 472, 475

(2014).

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

-4-

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be presented on direct appeal or

by a motion for appropriate relief. When presented on direct appeal, ineffective

assistance of counsel claims “will be decided on the merits when the cold record

reveals that no further investigation is required, i.e., claims that may be developed

and argued without such ancillary procedures as the appointment of investigators or

an evidentiary hearing.” State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 166 (2001). In other words,

where the record and the trial court’s order are sufficient to assess the ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, it may be reviewed on direct appeal. See State v. Oglesby,

382 N.C. 235, 245 (2022). Claims arising from an attorney’s failure to object at trial

often do not require further investigation and can be brought and decided on direct

appeal. See Fair, 354 N.C. at 166, 168; State v. Turner, 237 N.C. App. 388, 396 (2014);

State v. Hartley, 212 N.C. App. 1, 11–12 (2011).

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), the United States

Supreme Court established a two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel that

our Supreme Court subsequently adopted in State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 562

(1985). Under that test, the defendant must show that 1) their counsel’s performance

was deficient and 2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Braswell, 312

N.C. at 562. If a reviewing court can determine at the outset that the prejudice prong

is not met, then the court need not determine whether counsel's performance was

actually deficient. Braswell, 312 N.C. at 563.

To satisfy the prejudice prong, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a

-5-

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. “A reasonable

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id.

The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, but the reasonable probability

standard requires less than plain error. State v. Lane, 271 N.C. App. 307, 314 (2020)

(citing Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011)).

Here, defendant’s claim requires no further investigation, and the record is

sufficient to show that the alleged errors of defendant’s counsel did not prejudice his

defense. Accordingly, we can review defendant’s claim on direct appeal and decide it

on the merits. Furthermore, because defendant fails to show prejudice, we do not

determine whether counsel’s performance was actually deficient.

There was sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt presented at trial such that

there is not a reasonable probability that the result would have been different absent

counsel’s alleged errors. Defendant’s conviction of cocaine possession was supported

by witness testimony and lab tests. Deputy Taylor, an officer with experience in

narcotics investigations, testified that he found white powder on defendant’s person.

The powder was confirmed to be cocaine through both a field test and subsequent lab

tests. Even without the testimony and arguments about defendant’s silence and the

magistrate’s finding of probable cause, the State had presented ample evidence that

defendant possessed cocaine. Moreover, defendant presented no evidence to the

contrary. Thus, there is not a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors,

-6-

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

the jury would not have convicted defendant of felony possession of cocaine.

Similarly, there was enough evidence supporting defendant’s conviction of

possession of a firearm by a felon that absent counsel’s alleged error, the outcome

most likely would have been the same. The only alleged error relevant to the jury’s

conclusion that defendant possessed a firearm was counsel’s failure to object to

Deputy Taylor’s testimony about the magistrate finding probable cause. Meanwhile,

three separate witnesses testified to having seen defendant carrying and pointing a

gun. Defendant argues that the acquittal of his assault charge indicates that the jury

had some measure of disbelief in the testimonies of Oakley and her family. However,

the jury could have acquitted defendant of assault while still believing at least the

portions of witness testimony that defendant was carrying a handgun. Moreover,

even if we assume the jury did not believe their testimony, several guns and a holster

were found in the backyard and a pouch with handgun magazines was found by the

back porch where defendant had been sitting all night. In the face of this evidence,

the exclusion of Deputy Taylor’s testimony about the magistrate’s finding of probable

cause does not create a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a

different conclusion about defendant’s guilt.

Defendant has failed to show that his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance

prejudiced the defense. Accordingly, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.

III. Conclusion

-7-

STATE V. CURRIN

Opinion of the Court

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that defendant did not receive ineffective

assistance of counsel, and accordingly we discern no prejudicial error.

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.

Judges COLLINS and HAMPSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-8-