discussing, inter alia, State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96, 678 S.E.2d 592 (2009); State v. Moore, 162 N.C. App. 268, 592 S.E.2d 562 (2004); and State v. Weems, 31 N.C. App. 569, 230 S.E.2d 193 (1976)
How later courts described this case
- discussing, inter alia, State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96, 678 S.E.2d 592 (2009); State v. Moore, 162 N.C. App. 268, 592 S.E.2d 562 (2004); and State v. Weems, 31 N.C. App. 569, 230 S.E.2d 193 (1976)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEELMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
The defendant was convicted of the possession of two rocks of crack cocaine that he surrendered to police, not the counterfeit controlled substance that was found in the bathroom light fixture of the motel room.
On appeal, defendant brings forward only two assignments of error as follows:
6. The trial court’s conclusion of law in its denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, that... on the ground that it was erroneous in law, and, therefore, the trial court’s conclusion violated the defendant’s rights under North Carolina law, Article I, §§ 19, 20, 23 and 35 of the North Carolina Constitution, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
8. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that the decision was not supported by sufficient conclusions of law, was erroneous in law, and, therefore, the trial court’s decision violated the defendant’s rights under North Carolina law, Article I, §§ 19, 20, 23 and 35 of the North Carolina Constitution, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Neither of these assignments of error attack any of the trial court’s findings of fact, and they are therefore binding on appeal. State v. *674 Carrouthers, — N.C. App. —, —, 683 S.E.2d 781, 784 (2009). Since assignment of error 6 fails to specify which conclusion of law it seeks to attack, it is deficient. State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243, 288 , 595 S.E.2d 381, 411 (2004); N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (2009). There is no assignment of error that the conclusions of law are not supported by the findings of fact. The remaining assignments of error are not argued and are deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2009). Thus the analysis is limited to assignment of error 8, which is a general attack on the sufficiency of the conclusions of law to support the decision.
Defendant’s motion to suppress raised two issues; (1) that the police officers violated his constitutional rights by searching the motel room without consent and without a search warrant; and (2) that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant. The trial court’s order addresses in detail the first issue, but fails to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law as to whether there was probable cause to arrest the defendant.
It is not the role of the appellate courts to rule upon issues not previously decided by the trial court. State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 86-87 , 552 S.E.2d 596, 607 (2001). I would remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning whether there was probable cause to arrest the defendant.
I would affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress as to the search of the motel room.