{
  "id": 4221705,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOS JEROME GORDON, Dependant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gordon",
  "decision_date": "2013-07-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-1318",
  "first_page": "335",
  "last_page": "339",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 N.C. App. 335"
    }
  ],
  "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": "616 S.E.2d 500",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633573
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/616/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 L. Ed. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 U.S. 900",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1494036
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/488/0900-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 S.E.2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "593"
        },
        {
          "page": "593"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2567442
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "604"
        },
        {
          "page": "604"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "522 S.E.2d 65",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155797
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "150",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "150"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3803668
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "123"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511282
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "154"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 S.E.2d 791",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "793"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4731290
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 L. Ed. 2d 912",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "485 U.S. 1036",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        13312,
        13445,
        13287,
        13545,
        13740,
        13965,
        13233,
        14131,
        13397,
        13238,
        13399,
        13750,
        13849,
        13725
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/485/1036-05",
        "/us/485/1036-12",
        "/us/485/1036-11",
        "/us/485/1036-04",
        "/us/485/1036-06",
        "/us/485/1036-14",
        "/us/485/1036-08",
        "/us/485/1036-10",
        "/us/485/1036-01",
        "/us/485/1036-02",
        "/us/485/1036-13",
        "/us/485/1036-03",
        "/us/485/1036-09",
        "/us/485/1036-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 S.E.2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2569839
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "206"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "726 S.E.2d 156",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2012,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "159"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 N.C. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4355312
      ],
      "year": 2012,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "130"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/366/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "720 S.E.2d 820",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2012,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "823",
          "parenthetical": "granting certiorari when it was \"readily apparent\" that defendant lost his right to appeal \"through no fault of his own, but rather as a result of sloppy drafting of counsel\" and because not issuing a writ of certiorari would have been \"manifestly unjust\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 613,
    "char_count": 10269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2384608193484981e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6073014295428034
    },
    "sha256": "a908dc9a0983c0ef72c3f908421e3108f26dad4220d522eea61cd435480f02f3",
    "simhash": "1:956dd33b1d7d84bf",
    "word_count": 1669
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:27.138557+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ELMORE and HUNTER, JR. concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOS JEROME GORDON, Dependant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nDefendant Carlos Jerome Gordon appeals his conviction of common law robbery and assault on a female. We find no error.\nThe evidence at trial tended to show that on or about 18 July 2009 in mid-afternoon, Patricia Jackson was in the Mooresville Wal-Mart parking lot, loading groceries into her vehicle. Ms. Jackson \u2014 who was sixty-five years old at the time of trial \u2014 had parked her car \u201cin one of the furtherest [sic] rows out\u201d in an effort to \u201cget her exercise.\u201d Ms. Jackson was carrying her purse with its strap across her chest and over her opposite shoulder. Ms. Jackson noticed \u201ca tall, thin, nicely dressed young black man with short hair\u201d approaching her \u201c[rjapidly\u201d and in an \u201caggressive way.\u201d The man \u201cgrabbed [her] purse and yanked,\u201d but the strap did not immediately break. Ms. Jackson pushed her attacker, prompting him to strike her in the face, knocking her glasses off. The attacker \u201cpulled the purse again\u201d causing the strap to break and \u201cthen took the purse and ran and jumped in his car and drove away.\u201d Several eyewitnesses testified consistently with Ms. Jackson\u2019s account of the assault and purse-snatching.\nDetective John Vanderbilt of the Mooresville Police Department investigated the incident. After compiling information from various witness statements, Detective Vanderbilt entered the information into a computerized system which allows law enforcement agencies to share information that may be of \u201cinvestigative significance.\u201d Detective Vanderbilt entered information concerning the suspect\u2019s description, his vehicle\u2019s description and his \u201cM.O.\u201d The \u201cM.O.\u201d Detective Vanderbilt entered for this incident was: \u201cWal-Mart parking lot, daylight, lone female loading groceries into the car, purse stolen, and an assault took place.\u201d The Statesville Police Department responded to the information entered by Detective Vanderbilt with information about an incident that occurred six weeks earlier where a suspect was apprehended. Based on the similarities in the two events, Detective Vanderbilt included a photo of the suspect from the Statesville incident in a photo lineup. One of the eyewitnesses to the 18 July 2009 Mooresville incident made a positive identification of the Statesville suspect as the perpetrator of the Mooresville crime. The photo was of defendant.\nAt trial, the State presented evidence from Jesse Harding, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b). Harding testified that on or about 3 June 2009, he was in his car in the parking lot between the Cracker Barrel and Golden China in Statesville, North Carolina. The parking lot is situated near the Wal-Mart in Statesville, sharing \u201cthe same parking area.\u201d Harding was on his cell phone when he heard a woman screaming and noticed a person he identified as defendant running by his car carrying a purse. Harding gave chase in his car and eventually \u201cjumped out and got [defendant].\u201d Harding physically restrained defendant until the police arrived.\nA jury found defendant guilty on both charges. The trial court arrested judgment on the assault charge because the offenses occurred at the same time and share common elements. Defendant was sentenced to not less than sixteen and not more than twenty months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari. Defendant\u2019s petition was occasioned by defendant\u2019s trial counsel failing to give oral notice of appeal at trial and then providing written notice of appeal that does not comply with the requirements of North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. \u201cThe writ of certiorari may be issued in appropriate circumstances by either appellate court to permit review of the judgments and orders of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action . . . .\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 21(a) (1). \u201cAppropriate circumstances\u201d may include when a defendant\u2019s right to appeal has been lost because of a failure of his or her trial counsel to give proper notice of appeal. See State v. Hammonds,_N.C. App._, _, 720 S.E.2d 820, 823 (2012) (granting certiorari when it was \u201creadily apparent\u201d that defendant lost his right to appeal \u201cthrough no fault of his own, but rather as a result of sloppy drafting of counsel\u201d and because not issuing a writ of certiorari would have been \u201cmanifestly unjust\u201d). As the circumstances in this case are similar to those in Hammonds, we exercise our discretion and allow defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a)(1).\nDefendant\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) of the previous purse-snatching crime committed by defendant. Specifically, defendant contends the evidence was erroneously admitted because \u201c[t]he proffered other crimes evidence in this case does not have the \u2018substantial evidence of similarity\u2019 required in order for [the] testimony to be admissible under Rule 404(b).\u201d\n\u2022 \u201cWe review de novo the legal conclusion that the evidence is, or is not, within the coverage of Rule 404(b).\u201d State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012). N.C.R. Evid. 404(b) provides that \u201c[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2011). However, the evidence may \u201cbe admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\u201d Id. The enumerated list of permissible purposes in the rule is not exclusive, State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 206, 362 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036, 99 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1988), and, in fact, \u201cother crimes, wrongs, or acts\u201d evidence need only be \u201crelevant to any fact or issue other than the character of the accused\u201d to be admissible. State v. Weaver, 318 N.C. 400, 403, 348 S.E.2d 791, 793 (1986). Even if relevant, 404(b) evidence is also \u201cconstrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.\u201d State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154, 567 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2002), appeal after new trial, 359 N.C. 741, 616 S.E.2d 500 (2005). \u201cA prior act or crime is sufficiently similar to warrant admissibility under Rule 404(b) if there are some unusual facts present in both crimes or particularly similar acts which would indicate that the same person committed both crimes.\u201d State v. Sokolowski, 351 N.C. 137, 150, 522 S.E.2d 65, 73 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The similarities need not \u201crise to the level of the unique and bizarre.\u201d State v. Green, 321 N.C. 594, 604, 365 S.E.2d 587, 593, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900, 102 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1988).\nIn this case, the trial court announced findings from the bench concerning the similarities between the two crimes:\n[E]ach of these incidents occurred in or in the vicinity of a Wal-Mart parking lot; that each of the victims in this matter were female and alone; that each of the incidents involved a common law robbery, the purse snatching, a grab and dash type of crime; that these incidents occurred within six weeks of one another, one in Statesville, one in Mooresville, which are approximately 20 miles apart; and in each incident, the alleged perpetrator of the crime in each incident was a black male.\nThe trial court then concluded:'\nThe court in this matter is going to find that the crimes and the elements, facts and circumstances surrounding the crimes are significantly similar enough to one another that the state\u2019s purpose or intent to use the 404-B evidence is to identify the defendant and showed a common scheme or plan in this matter.\nDefendant contends that the similarities in the two incidents are \u201cnothing more than the characteristics inherent in most purse-snatching type robberies, and the court ignored substantial differences between the two crimes.\u201d Defendant cites escaping on foot versus by car and the fact that the perpetrator wore a \u201cdo-rag\u201d in the first incident versus being bareheaded in the second. We disagree.\nIn this case, the common locations, victims, type of crime, and proximity in time \u00e1re sufficiently similar that the 404(b) evidence was properly admitted. We believe the facts present in both crimes amount to \u201cparticularly similar acts which would indicate that the same person committed both crimes.\u201d See Sokolowski, 351 N.C. at 150, 522 S.E.2d at 73. Defendant\u2019s contention that the perpetrator\u2019s lack of a \u201cdo-rag\u201d during the second crime prevents the crimes from being substantially similar amounts to requiring the facts \u201crise to the level of the unique and bizarre,\u201d which our case law does not require. See Green, 321 N.C. at 604, 365 S.E.2d at 593. Therefore, defendant\u2019s argument is without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges ELMORE and HUNTER, JR. concur.\n. Typically \u201cM.O.\u201d stands for modus operandi, a \u201cmethod of operating or a manner of procedure; esp. a pattern of criminal behavior so distinctive that investigators attribute it to the work of the same person.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1026 (8th ed. 2004).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sharon Patrick-Wilson, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Winifred H. Dillon, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOS JEROME GORDON, Dependant\nNo. COA12-1318\nFiled 16 July 2013\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 inadequate notice of appeal \u2014 writ of certiorari\nA writ of certiorari was issued by the Court of Appeals where defendant\u2019s attorney did not give oral notice of appeal at trial and then gave a written notice that did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.\n2. Evidence \u2014 prior offense \u2014 sufficiently similar \u2014 admissible\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for common law robbery and assault on a female when it admitted evidence of a previous purse-snatching crime committed by defendant. The common locations, victims, type of crime, and proximity in time were sufficiently similar that the evidence was properly admitted under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b).\nOn writ of certiorari to review judgment entered 30 April 2012 by Judge Christopher W. Bragg in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 June 2013.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sharon Patrick-Wilson, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nWinifred H. Dillon, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0335-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 349
}
