State v. Stockton

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA 25-214

Filed 7 January 2026

Cherokee County, Nos. 23CR440320-190, 23CR440425-190

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

ROGER WAYNE STOCKTON, Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 17 July 2024 by Judge Tessa S.

Sellers in Cherokee County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10

September 2025.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth G.

Arnette, for the State.

Appellate 25-214 State v. Stockton_eDock v0Defender Glenn Gerding, by

Assistant Appellate Defender Callie S. Thomas, for Defendant–Appellant.

MURRY, Judge.

Roger W. Stockton (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his

motion to suppress. He also appeals the judgments entered upon his convictions for

two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine and one count each of possession of

firearm by a felon; possession of cocaine; possession with intent to manufacture, sell,

or deliver cocaine; and possession of drug paraphernalia. For the reasons below, this

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

Court holds that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress

or in reaching the subsequent judgment.

I. Background

Around 9:00 p.m. on 20 October 2023, Cherokee County Sheriff Sergeant

Hunter Wood was patrolling the area around Caney Creek Road in Murphy, North

Carolina due to “complaints of drug activity.” Upon observing a vehicle leaving a

residence, he followed the vehicle, which “swerved” and “hit the white line,” “abruptly

braked,” “activated a turn signal, and turned onto a private drive.” Based on the

vehicle’s “failure to maintain lane control” and “suspicious activity from turning onto

a private drive” immediately after leaving a residence, Sergeant Wood initiated a

traffic stop by activating his emergency lights and radioing the stop to a dispatcher.

The vehicle was “slow to stop” in response, continuing to travel down the private road

for “[a]pproximately a quarter mile” despite having the opportunity to stop sooner.

As the vehicle came to a stop, Sergeant Wood observed the back passenger door

open and Defendant run out of the vehicle into a clearing. Sergeant Wood exited his

patrol vehicle and “began shouting commands” at Defendant to return. Defendant

“eventually began complying” and walked back to Sergeant Wood, who detained him

on the ground in handcuffs. He then walked Defendant to the patrol vehicle, during

which Defendant told him that he had fled because “he had warrants out of Georgia.”

After a backup officer arrived on the scene, both he and Sergeant Wood searched the

-2-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

vehicle and the area where Defendant was detained. Their search recovered

methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, a gun, and a set of scales. That same day,

Defendant was arrested on drug trafficking and possession charges.

On 26 February 2024, a grand jury indicted Defendant for two counts of

trafficking in fentanyl; two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine; and one count

each of possession of firearm by felon; possession of cocaine; possession with intent to

manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine; and possession of drug paraphernalia. On 23

May 2024, Defendant moved to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the traffic

stop on the grounds that Sergeant Wood lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. At

a suppression hearing on 15 July 2024, Sergeant Wood initially testified he had

observed the vehicle swerve with two tires over the double yellow line. But after

defense counsel refreshed his recollection, Sergeant Wood corrected his testimony to

state that the vehicle’s tires had “hit the white line.” The trial court admitted into

evidence the items defense counsel had used to refresh Sergeant Wood’s recollection,

namely, the body-camera footage of the incident, Sergeant Wood’s subsequent traffic-

stop report, and an excerpt from the incident-investigation report stating that the

vehicle hit the white line. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress that

same day. In the order denying the motion, the trial court made no specific written

finding about the nature of the traffic violation.

Two days later, the case came on for trial. Sergeant Wood testified at trial

regarding the traffic stop, Defendant’s flight from the vehicle, and the subsequent

-3-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

search of the area where he detained Defendant. At the close of the State’s evidence,

Defendant moved to dismiss all charges, which the trial court denied. The trial court

also denied Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss at the close of all evidence for all

charges except the two counts of trafficking in fentanyl. The jury found Defendant

guilty of two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine and one count each of

possession of firearm by a felon; possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver

cocaine; possession of cocaine; and possession of drug paraphernalia.

During sentencing, Defendant stipulated to substantial similarity between his

Georgia convictions and the corresponding North Carolina felonies of possession of

firearm by a felon and hit and run with failure to stop causing serious injury or death.

Defendant also stipulated to the State’s calculation of his prior record level (PRL) as

VI with 21 prior points. The trial court accepted Defendant’s stipulation, and after a

“review [of] the official code of Georgia as the body of law which embodies those

particular charges,” found his Georgia convictions to be substantially similar to the

corresponding North Carolina felonies. Based on a determination of his PRL VI with

21 prior points, the trial court sentenced Defendant to 70–93 months in custody.

Defendant timely appealed.

II. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s appeal of a final judgment of the

trial court under N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-27, 15A-1444 because the trial court entered final

judgments upon a jury’s guilty verdicts to which Defendant pled not guilty. See

-4-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b)(2025) (final judgment of a trial court); id. § 15A-1444(a) (pleaded

not guilty but found guilty).

III. Analysis

Defendant asks this Court to “reverse the trial court’s order, grant [his] motion

to suppress, set aside the judgment, and remand for further proceedings.” He argues

that the trial court plainly erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and

reversibly erred by miscalculating his PRL.1 For the following reasons, this Court

disagrees and holds that the trial court did not err on either count.

A. Motion to Suppress

In challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion, Defendant claims the State

lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Because Defendant failed to object to

Sergeant Wood’s traffic-stop testimony at trial, we review for plain error only. See

N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(4). To show plain error, a defendant must show that “a

fundamental error occurred at trial” that “had a probable impact on the outcome,

meaning that[,] absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different

verdict,” and the error would “seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153, 158 (2024) (quoting

1 Defendant also challenges the facial constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1. He did not preserve

this challenge at trial. See N.C. R. App. P. 2, 10; State v. Bursell, 372 N.C. 196, 199 (2019)

(constitutional arguments are unpreserved for review if not made at trial). We recently upheld the

facial constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 in State v. Nanes, 297 N.C. App. 863 (2025), and are

bound by the decision of a prior panel of this Court, see In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384

(1989). Because Defendant’s argument is meritless under binding authority, we decline to invoke

Rule 2 and dismiss Defendant’s facial constitutional challenge to N.C.G.S. § 14415.1 as a result.

-5-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518–19 (2012)). For the reasons below, we hold that

the trial court did not plainly err.

1. Reasonable Suspicion

Defendant asserts that Sergeant Wood lacked reasonable suspicion for the

traffic stop. Defendant claims this Court may consider only the events preceding

Sergeant Wood’s activation of his emergency lights to initiate the stop. He argues

that the facts preceding the initiation of the stop did not give rise to reasonable

suspicion; general drug complaints in the area and the driver’s actions of touching

the white line and turning onto a private drive were “not illegal or suspicious” per se.

Defendant’s argument misapprehends the totality of the circumstances and is

without merit.

Both the Federal and State Constitutions protect an individual from

“unreasonable searches and seizures,” which include “brief investigatory detentions

. . . involved in the stopping of a vehicle.” State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441 (1994);

see U.S. Const. amend. IV, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, § 20. A law enforcement officer

may conduct a traffic stop only upon “reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime

may be underway.” State v. Barnard, 184 N.C. App. 25, 29 (2007) (citing Terry v.

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)). Reasonable suspicion requires “only . . . a minimal level

of objective justification, something more than an ‘unparticularized suspicion or

hunch.’ ” Watkins, 337 N.C. at 442 (quoting U.S. v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). It

is a “less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing

-6-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

considerably less than preponderance of the evidence.” Barnard, 362 N.C. at 247

(2008) (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). In determining

whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, this Court

considers “the totality of the circumstances” that the officer encounters. State v.

Mahatha, 267 N.C. App. 355, 359 (2019) (quotation omitted).

In analyzing the totality of the circumstance to determine reasonable

suspicion, our courts consider the lateness of the hour, see State v. Brown, 213 N.C.

App. 617, 620 (2011), the area’s “propensity toward criminal activity,” State v.

Clyburn, 120 N.C. App. 377, 381 (1995) (quotation omitted), and the suspect’s driving

patterns, State v. Jones, 96 N.C. App. 389, 395 (1989); see also, e.g., State v. Johnson,

370 N.C. 32 (2017) (abrupt acceleration and turn), State v. Otto, 366 N.C. 134 (2012)

(constant weaving in lane); State v. Alvarez, 385 N.C. 431 (2023) (failure to maintain

lane control); State v. Bullock, 370 N.C. 256 (2017) (weaving over white line).

We find State v. Mangum, 250 N.C. App. 714 (2016), particularly instructive of

the principle that “the reasonable suspicion inquiry includes events that occur

between the initiation and the completion of a stop.” Id. at 724. In Mangum, this

Court reasoned that, because the defendant chose to continue driving in response to

a police officer’s activation of his emergency lights, “there was no submission to the

officer’s authority and therefore no seizure at that time.” Id. at. 726. Rather, the

traffic stop “occurred approximately two minutes later, when [the] defendant did in

fact pull over.” Id. Thus, this Court held that the trial court’s reasonable-suspicion

-7-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

inquiry “properly” considered “circumstances that arose after . . . [the officer’s]

activation of his blue lights but before [the] defendant’s actual submission to police

authority.” Id. Thus, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the reasonable-suspicion

inquiry for the traffic stop properly encompasses the events between Sergeant Wood’s

initiation of the stop and its completion. See id. at 724.

The totality of the circumstances supports Sergeant Wood’s conclusion of

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, our

review need not determine whether every fact and circumstance is “illegal or

suspicious,” but whether the totality gives rise to reasonable suspicion. “[M]ultiple

factors ‘quite consistent with innocent travel’ can, when viewed together, ‘amount to

reasonable suspicion.’ ” Barnard, 362 N.C. at 250 (quoting Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9).

Accordingly, “the key determination is not the innocence of an individual’s conduct,

but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.” Id.

(Brady, J., dissenting) (quoting Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 10).

Here, all the factors discussed above were present prior to Sergeant Wood’s

initiation of the stop. At night, in an area known for drug activity, Sergeant Wood

observed the vehicle swerve and hit the white line. He also identified the vehicle as

what “we . . . in the law enforcement community” “call . . . slow to stop” when it

continued down the private road for “[a]pproximately a quarter mile” before stopping.

See Mangum, 250 N.C. App. at 724 (considering failure to immediately stop after

officer activates emergency lights as reasonable-suspicion factor); United States v.

-8-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

Miller, 54 F.4th 219, 230 (4th Cir. 2022) (driver must pull over within a “reasonable”

time after officer activates emergency lights). Based on the “totality of the

circumstances, both before and after” Sergeant Wood “signal[ed] his intention to

stop,” the trial court properly concluded that reasonable suspicion existed for the

traffic stop. Mangum, 250 N.C. App. at 719. Thus, this Court holds that the trial court

did not plainly err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.

2. No Evidentiary Conflict

In the alternative, Defendant asks this Court to remand for written findings of

fact to resolve “material, controverted facts at the suppression hearing.” Specifically,

he argues that, because the State’s “primary evidence” of reasonable suspicion for the

traffic stop was the vehicle’s “alleged lane violation,” the trial court erred by failing

to make findings of fact regarding whether the vehicle crossed over the double yellow

line or touched the white line. We disagree.

In deciding a motion to suppress, the trial court “must set forth in the record

. . . findings of facts and conclusions of law.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-977(f) (2025). Our

Supreme Court has clarified that, “[a]lthough the . . . directive [in N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-977] is in the imperative form, only a material conflict in the evidence—one

that potentially affects the outcome of the suppression motion—must be resolved by

explicit factual findings that show the basis for the trial court’s ruling.” State v.

Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309, 312 (2015). “When there is no conflict in the evidence, the trial

court’s findings can be inferred from its decision.” Id.

-9-

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

Here, although Sergeant Wood initially testified at the suppression hearing

that he observed the vehicle swerve with two tires over the double yellow line, he

corrected his testimony to state that the vehicle’s tires “hit the white line” after

defense counsel refreshed his recollection. See N.C. R. Evid. 612 (refreshing memory).

The trial court also admitted into evidence the items defense counsel used to refresh

Sergeant Wood’s recollection, namely, the body-camera footage of the incident, his

subsequent traffic-stop report, and an excerpt from the incident-investigation report

stating the vehicle’s tire had hit the white line. The trial court made no specific

written finding about the nature of the traffic violation because no “material conflict

in the evidence” would require explicit factfinding. See Bartlett, 368 N.C. at 312.

Defendant introduced no conflicting evidence to Sergeant Wood’s testimony that the

vehicle’s tire had touched the white line, and the trial court considered evidence

corroborating this testimony. We thus infer that the trial court denied Defendant’s

motion to suppress based on its consideration of the evidence presented “in the light

most favorable to the State.” State v. Norman, 293 N.C. App. 744, 749 (2024).

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err by including no written finding

regarding this uncontroverted issue.

B. Prior Record Level

Second, Defendant claims that the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to

calculate his PRL at 14 points and sentence him as a Level V offender. We disagree.

This Court reviews a trial court’s PRL calculation de novo to determine whether

- 10 -

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

“competent evidence in the record adequately supports the trial court’s decision.”

State v. Bohler, 198 N.C. App. 631, 633 (2009). “Determination of whether the out-of-

state conviction is substantially similar to a North Carolina offense is a question of

law involving comparison of the elements of the out-of-state offense to those of the

North Carolina offense.” State v. Fortney, 201 N.C. App. 662, 671 (2010). At

sentencing, the State must prove substantial similarity “by a preponderance of the

evidence,” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14(b) (2025), and “may establish the elements of an

out-of-state offense by providing evidence of the statute law of such state.” State v.

Sanders, 367 N.C. 716, 718 (2014) (quotation omitted).

1. Default Class H/I Felonies

Defendant argues that the trial court should have classified his convictions for

criminal interference with government property, fleeing or eluding a police officer,

and theft by taking as Class 1 misdemeanors instead of Class H/I felonies under

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14, which in turn would add three total points to his PRL

instead of six total points. We disagree.

The default rule under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14 classifies an out-of-state

conviction as “a Class I felony if the [out-of-state] jurisdiction . . . classifies the offense

as a felony,” or “as a Class 3 misdemeanor if the [out-of-state] jurisdiction . . .

classifies the offense as a misdemeanor.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14(e). Each prior

conviction for a Class H or I felony adds two points to a defendant’s PRL. Id.

§ 15A-1340.14(b)(4). If the State “classifies an out-of-state conviction as a Class I

- 11 -

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

felony” by default, then the State need not demonstrate substantial similarity. State

v. Hinton, 196 N.C. App. 750, 755 (2009). Here, the State did not seek a higher

classification than the default Class I felony for these three out-of-state convictions.

Furthermore, any discrepancy between Class H and Class I felonies is irrelevant for

sentencing purposes because both Classes add two points to Defendant’s PRL and

would not impact Defendant’s sentence. Thus, the trial court properly applied the

default rule under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14 to classify Defendant’s three Georgia

convictions as North Carolina Class H/I felonies.

2. Stipulation to Class F Felony

Defendant further claims that the trial court erred by accepting his stipulation

regarding his out-of-state conviction for hit and run causing serious injury or death,

which he argues is substantially similar to a North Carolina Class 1 misdemeanor,

and not to a Class F felony. At sentencing, the trial court accepted Defendant’s

stipulation to substantial similarity between his Georgia conviction for hit and run

causing serious injury or death and a corresponding North Carolina offense, and to

the State’s PRL calculation of Defendant as a Level VI with 21 prior sentencing

points. While “[s]tipulations as to questions of law are generally held invalid and

ineffective,” State v. Hanton, 175 N.C. App. 250, 253 (2006), the trial court’s

independent determination of substantial similarity here renders any invalidity in

the stipulation non-prejudicial, State v. Prevette, 39 N.C. App. 470, 472 (1979).

Apart from Defendant’s stipulation, the trial court reviewed “the official code

- 12 -

STATE V. STOCKTON

Opinion of the Court

of Georgia as the body of law . . . which embodies those particular charges[,] and

would find that they are substantially similar” to the North Carolina offenses “as

presented on the particular record.” The trial court properly determined substantial

similarity by independently reviewing the relevant Georgia statutes. See State v.

Stafford, 274 N.C. 519, 528 (1968) (quoting 1 N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error § 46

(1967). Thus, this Court holds that the trial court did not prejudicially err in

calculating Defendant’s prior record level.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that (1) the trial court did

not plainly err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, (2) Defendant’s facial

constitutional challenge to N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 is meritless, and (3) the trial court did

not prejudicially err in calculating Defendant’s prior record level.

NO ERROR.

Judges TYSON and GORE concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 13 -