{
  "id": 4181239,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENDRICK WILKINS, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilkins",
  "decision_date": "2010-12-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA10-634",
  "first_page": "729",
  "last_page": "733",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. App. 729"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "617 S.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633691
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/617/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "647 S.E.2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638933
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "137",
          "parenthetical": "\"Cases in which packaging has been a factor have tended to involve drugs divided into smaller quantities and packaged separately.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "137"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"[T]he presence of cash, alone, is insufficient to infer an intent to sell or distribute.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "137"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/647/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "612 S.E.2d 172",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12632785
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "175-76"
        },
        {
          "page": "176"
        },
        {
          "page": "176"
        },
        {
          "page": "175-76"
        },
        {
          "page": "176-77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/612/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E.2d 599",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "602"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561423
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "258"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 L. Ed. 2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 S. Ct. 2818",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "591 S.E.2d 837",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "842"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.C. 529",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        491517
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "536"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/357/0529-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "607 S.E.2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "24",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Squires, 357 N.C. 529, 536, 591 S.E.2d 837, 842 (2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2818, 159 L. Ed. 2d 252 (2004)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468544
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "159",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Squires, 357 N.C. 529, 536, 591 S.E.2d 837, 842 (2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2818, 159 L. Ed. 2d 252 (2004)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 S.E.2d 70",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73",
          "parenthetical": "holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to sell or deliver where the defendant was in possession of one large cocaine rock and eight smaller rocks"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11917298
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "373",
          "parenthetical": "holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to sell or deliver where the defendant was in possession of one large cocaine rock and eight smaller rocks"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0369-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 800",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3795437
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0800-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "600 S.E.2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "35",
          "parenthetical": "finding an intent to sell or deliver where defendant possessed 5.5 grams of cocaine separated into 22 individually wrapped pieces"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N.C. App. 777",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9000067
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "783",
          "parenthetical": "finding an intent to sell or deliver where defendant possessed 5.5 grams of cocaine separated into 22 individually wrapped pieces"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/165/0777-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N.C. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8187030
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "589",
          "parenthetical": "\"Cases in which packaging has been a factor have tended to involve drugs divided into smaller quantities and packaged separately.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "589"
        },
        {
          "page": "589"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/184/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E.2d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "564",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where \"[t]he evidence at trial showed that the [27.6 grams of] marijuana.. . was packaged in seventeen separate, small brown envelopes known in street terminology as 'nickel or dime bags' \""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524240
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "139"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 S.E.2d 513",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566402,
        8566469,
        8566501,
        8566439,
        8566365
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0592-02",
        "/nc/293/0592-04",
        "/nc/293/0592-05",
        "/nc/293/0592-03",
        "/nc/293/0592-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 S.E.2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "268"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549378
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "294-95"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/33/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 S.E.2d 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "835-36"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2556155
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "659-60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0654-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3796929,
        3798818,
        3797669,
        3802277,
        3801669,
        3795594,
        3796906,
        3803790,
        3803571,
        3797078,
        3800984
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "617"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0640-02",
        "/nc/359/0640-03",
        "/nc/359/0640-10",
        "/nc/359/0640-01",
        "/nc/359/0640-09",
        "/nc/359/0640-08",
        "/nc/359/0640-07",
        "/nc/359/0640-05",
        "/nc/359/0640-04",
        "/nc/359/0640-11",
        "/nc/359/0640-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.C. App. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9004353
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "105"
        },
        {
          "page": "105"
        },
        {
          "page": "107"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/170/0100-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 S.E.2d 680",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "682"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9249601
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/153/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "139-40"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511311
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "145"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 S.E.2d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "587"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 N.C. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2395265
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "566"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/310/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "561 S.E.2d 245",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "255"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.C. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        219909
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "336"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/355/0320-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 623,
    "char_count": 11817,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.718,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.265598190201249e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47852654730063415
    },
    "sha256": "d8f0f697b6292e70d5256565f4cd37ea8c4b59b7bc37863b000bb72128d00819",
    "simhash": "1:8a294e7f148b065e",
    "word_count": 1960
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:36.775795+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ELMORE and JACKSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENDRICK WILKINS, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.\nKendrick Wilkins (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of felonious possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver (\u201cPWISD\u201d). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge. After careful review, we vacate defendant\u2019s sentence and remand for resentencing upon a conviction of possession of a controlled substance.'\nBackground\nThe evidence at trial tended to establish the following facts: On 17 January 2008, defendant was driving a brown Ford Crown Victoria along Raleigh Road in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Defendant was driving to his mother\u2019s house after purchasing cigars at a convenience store. Defendant passed by Rocky Mount Police Officer T.J. Bunt (\u201cOfficer Bunt\u201d), who recognized the Crown Victoria as the car typically driven by Rico Battle (\u201cBattle\u201d). Officer Bunt knew that there were several outstanding warrants for Battle so he activated his blue lights and pulled over the Crown Victoria. When Officer Bunt approached the car, he noticed that defendant was the only occupant of the car and that he was wearing a hat and sunglasses. Officer Bunt testified that when he knocked on the driver\u2019s side window, defendant \u201ckind of turned... away\u201d and \u201crefused to open\u201d .the window or the car door. Officer Bunt then opened the driver\u2019s side door, and, upon being asked his name, defendant identified himself as Kendrick Wilkins. Officer Bunt knew that there were outstanding warrants for defendant, and after confirming the existence of the warrants, Officer Bunt arrested defendant.\nUpon searching defendant subsequent to the arrest, Officer Bunt discovered a small plastic bag inside of defendant\u2019s pocket, which contained three smaller bags. Each of the three bags were \u201ctied off\u2019 at the top and contained a substance Officer Bunt believed to be marijuana. The substance was later weighed and determined to be 1.89 grams of marijuana. Defendant testified that he purchased the marijuana for personal use and that typically marijuana can be bought in \u201cnickel\u201d or \u201cdime\u201d bags for $5.00 to $10.00 each.\nDuring the pat down, Officer Bunt also found $1,264.00 in cash separated into 60 $20.00 bills, one $10.00 bill, nine $5.00 bills, and nine $1.00 bills. At trial, defendant testified that approximately $1,000.00 of the cash recovered was for a cash bond that his mother gave to him and the remaining $264.00 was from a check he had cashed. Defendant testified that he was carrying cash because he was \u201con the run\u201d and if he were arrested the bail bondsman would not accept a check. Defendant was charged with PWISD.\nAt trial, the juiy was instructed on PWISD and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The jury found defendant guilty of PWISD. Defendant was determined to be a record level in for sentencing purposes and the trial court sentenced defendant to a suspended sentence of 6 to 8 months imprisonment. Defendant was placed on 36 months of supervised probation. Defendant timely appealed to this Court.\nDiscussion\nDefendant\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the PWISD charge. We agree.\nIt is well established that a trial court properly denies a defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss if it finds that the State presented substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and that the defendant was the perpetrator. State v. Robinson, 355 N.C. 320, 336, 561 S.E.2d 245, 255 (2002).\u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984). \u201c[E]vidence is deemed less than substantial if it raises no more than mere suspicion or conjecture as to the defendant\u2019s guilt.\u201d State v. Butler, 356 N.C. 141, 145, 567 S.E.2d 137, 139-40 (2002). \u201cIf the trial court determines that a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s guilt may be drawn from the evidence, it must deny the defendant\u2019s motion and send the case to the jury even though the evidence may also support reasonable inferences of the defendant\u2019s innocence.\u201d State v. Tisdale, 153 N.C. App. 294, 297, 569 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002).\nDefendant was charged with PWISD pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(l) (2009). \u201cWhile intent [to sell or deliver] may be shown by direct evidence, it is often proven by circumstantial evidence from which it may be inferred.\u201d State v. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. 100, 105, 612 S.E.2d 172, 175-76, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 640, 617, S.E.2d 286 (2005). \u201c[T]he intent to sell or [deliver] may be inferred from (1) the packaging, labeling, and storage of the controlled substance, (2) the defendant\u2019s activities, (3) the quantity found, and (4) the presence of cash or drug paraphernalia.\u201d Id. at 106, 612 S.E.2d at 176. \u201cAlthough \u2018quantity of the controlled substance alone may suffice to support the inference of an intent to transfer, sell, or deliver,\u2019 it must be a substantial amount.\u201d Id. at 105, 612 S.E.2d at 176 (quoting State v. Morgan, 329 N.C. 654, 659-60, 406 S.E.2d 833, 835-36 (1991)).\nIn the present case, only 1.89 grams of marijuana was found on defendant\u2019s person, which alone is insufficient to prove that defendant had the intent to sell or deliver. See State v. Wiggins, 33 N.C. App. 291, 294-95, 235 S.E.2d 265, 268 (holding that the finding of less than a half pound of marijuana alone was not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss), cert. denied, 293 N.C. 592, 241 S.E.2d 513 (1977). Accordingly, we must examine the other evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State.\nThe State points to the fact that the marijuana seized from defendant was separated into three smaller packages. Officer Bunt testified that marijuana is typically sold \u201cin bags in different sizes.\u201d Based on his training and experience, Officer Bunt believed that each bag of marijuana found in defendant\u2019s pocket would sell for between $5.00 and $10.00 each. \u201cThe method of packaging a controlled substance, as well as the amount of the substance, may constitute evidence from which a jury can infer an intent to distribute.\u201d State v. Williams, 71 N.C. App. 136, 139, 321 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1984) (holding that the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss where \u201c[t]he evidence at trial showed that the [27.6 grams of] marijuana.. . was packaged in seventeen separate, small brown envelopes known in street terminology as \u2018nickel or dime bags\u2019 \u201d); see also In re I.R.T., 184 N.C. App. 579, 589, 647 S.E.2d 129, 137 (2007) (\u201cCases in which packaging has been a factor have tended to involve drugs divided into smaller quantities and packaged separately.\u201d); State v. McNeil, 165 N.C. App. 777, 783, 600 S.E.2d 31, 35 (2004) (finding an intent to sell or deliver where defendant possessed 5.5 grams of cocaine separated into 22 individually wrapped pieces), aff\u2019d, 359 N.C. 800, 617 S.E.2d 271 (2005); State v. Carr, 122 N.C. App. 369, 373, 470 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1996) (holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to sell or deliver where the defendant was in possession of one large cocaine rock and eight smaller rocks). The State has not pointed to a case, nor have we found one, where the division of such a small amount of a controlled substance constituted sufficient evidence to survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the 1.89 grams was divided into only three separate bags. While small bags may typically be used to package marijuana, it is just as likely that defendant was a consumer who purchased the drugs in that particular packaging from a dealer. Consequently, we hold that the separation of 1.89 grams of marijuana into three small packages, worth a total of approximately $30.00, does not raise an inference that defendant intended to sell or deliver the marijuana.\nIn addition to the packaging, we must also consider the fact that defendant was carrying $1,264.00 in cash. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. at 105, 612 S.E.2d at 175-76. \u201cHowever, unexplained cash is only one factor that can help support the intent element.\u201d I.R.T., 184 N.C. App. at 589, 647 S.E.2d at 137. Upon viewing the evidence of the packaging and the cash \u201ccumulatively,\u201d we hold that the evidence is insufficient to support the felony charge. Id. Had defendant possessed more than 1.89 grams of marijuana, or had there been additional circumstances to consider, we may have reached a different conclusion; however, given the fact that neither the amount of marijuana nor the packaging raises an inference that defendant intended to sell the drugs, the presence of the cash as the only additional factor is insufficient to raise the inference. See id. (\u201c[T]he presence of cash, alone, is insufficient to infer an intent to sell or distribute.\u201d).\nThe present case is similar to Nettles where this Court held that possession of a small amount of crack cocaine along with $411.00 and a safety pen, which is typically used to clean a crack pipe, was insufficient to support a charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver. 170 N.C. App. at 107, 612 S.E.2d at 176-77. This Court held that \u201c[vjiewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tends to indicate defendant was a drug user, not a drug seller.\u201d Id. We believe the totality of the circumstances in this case compels the same conclusion. Defendant possessed a very small amount of marijuana that was packaged in three small bags and he had $1,264.00 in cash on his person. The evidence in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, indicates that defendant was a drug user, not a drug seller.\n\u201cThe charge of simple possession, however, is a lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell or distribute.\u201d I.R.T., 184 N.C. App. at 589, 647 S.E.2d at 137. \u201c \u2018When [the trier of fact] finds the facts necessary to constitute one offense, it also inescapably finds the facts necessary to constitute all lesser-included offenses of that offense.\u2019\u201d State v. Turner, 168 N.C. App. 152, 159, 607 S.E.2d 19, 24 (2005) (quoting State v. Squires, 357 N.C. 529, 536, 591 S.E.2d 837, 842 (2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2818, 159 L. Ed. 2d 252 (2004)). Consequently, when the jury found defendant guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver, it necessarily found him guilty of simple possession of a controlled substance. Id. Consequently, we vacate defendant\u2019s sentence and remand for entry of a judgment \u201cas upon a verdict of guilty of simple possession of marijuana.\u201d State v. Gooch, 307 N.C. 253, 258, 297 S.E.2d 599, 602 (1982).\nVacated and Remanded.\nJudges ELMORE and JACKSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charles G. Whitehead, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENDRICK WILKINS, Defendant\nNo. COA10-634\n(Filed 21 December 2010)\nDrugs\u2014 marijuana \u2014 intent to sell or deliver \u2014 evidence not sufficient \u2014 simple possession as lesser-included offense\nA conviction and sentence for felonious possession of marijuana with, intent to sell or deliver were vacated and the case remanded for entry of judgment for simple possession where defendant was found with 1.89 grams of marijuana in three small plastic bags and $1,264 in cash. The amount of marijuana alone was not sufficient for intent to sell or deliver; the packaging was just as likely to indicate a consumer as a dealer; and the presence of cash alone was not sufficient to raise the inference of dealing. The charge of simple possession is a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to sell or distribute.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 13 January 2010 by Judge Quentin T. Sumner in Nash County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 November 2010.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charles G. Whitehead, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0729-01",
  "first_page_order": 753,
  "last_page_order": 757
}