{ "id": 8526692, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAMON A. PAGON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pagon", "decision_date": "1983-10-04", "docket_number": "No. 8211SC1213", "first_page": "295", "last_page": "301", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.C. App. 295" } ], "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": "397 U.S. 759", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12058501 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/397/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 S.E. 2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573306 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N.C. L. Rev. 185", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 S.E. 2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572329, 8572303, 8572374, 8572407, 8572445 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0732-02", "/nc/304/0732-01", "/nc/304/0732-03", "/nc/304/0732-04", "/nc/304/0732-05" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E. 2d 397", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521581 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565485 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 370", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "defendant convicted of armed robbery of a pistol and armed robbery of money, judgment arrested on armed robbery of money" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 N.C. App. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547829 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "defendant convicted of armed robbery of a pistol and armed robbery of money, judgment arrested on armed robbery of money" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/28/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 S.E. 2d 307", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "conviction of assault on an officer and resisting arrest. Judgment arrested on assault charges" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 N.C. App. 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552184 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "conviction of assault on an officer and resisting arrest. Judgment arrested on assault charges" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/33/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 S.E. 2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "defendant convicted of larceny and felonious possession of same property, possession of stolen property conviction stricken" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526949 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "defendant convicted of larceny and felonious possession of same property, possession of stolen property conviction stricken" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 616", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568241 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553456 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Additional citations omitted." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565031 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E. 2d 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 700", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559009 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0700-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 S.E. 2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564096 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E. 2d 914", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575172 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567497 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "441 U.S. 369", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1780286 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/441/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560074 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561566 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0404-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 646, "char_count": 14296, "ocr_confidence": 0.814, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2582244350638302e-07, "percentile": 0.6117787176009103 }, "sha256": "02e5c59796db3971a8eea2038cbbe5111762174aa20d80b27c9d614abc5d2c21", "simhash": "1:8aaa42ed7697247e", "word_count": 2384 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAMON A. PAGON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error that the trial court failed to exclude on its own motion statements defendant made in the police car, despite the fact that defendant\u2019s trial counsel did not object to introduction of the statements. A defendant who fails to object to admission of evidence may not later complain about its introduction, even on constitutional grounds. State v. Mitchell, 276 N.C. 404, 172 S.E. 2d 527 (1970). Where, however, it appears on the face of the record that defendant\u2019s confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, the court may have the duty of excluding the confession on its own motion. State v. Pearce, 266 N.C. 234, 145 S.E. 2d 918 (1966). In Pearce, the defendant was charged with a capital offense, held in jail for two months without being permitted an attorney and was frequently subjected to interrogations by police. The court noted that in the absence of the protection of an attorney \u201cat a time when (the defendant) . . . was under a charge which could cost his life, the officers continued their questioning which obviously was for the sole purpose of extracting damaging admissions.\u201d Under the peculiar circumstances there disclosed the trial court\u2019s failure to exclude the statement on its own motion as involuntarily made was error.\nThe record of the case at bar is bare of the kind of coercive circumstances required to trigger the court\u2019s duty to exclude a confession sua sponte. Pearce, supra. There was evidence on the face of this record which could lead the trial court to conclude that defendant\u2019s confession was voluntarily given and that defendant waived his right to remain silent. First, there was evidence that defendant had lived in the United States for four years and could carry on a conversation with the police officers in English. Second, there was evidence that defendant had validly waived his right to remain silent. Such a waiver need not be express. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed. 2d 286 (1979). North Carolina courts look to a variety of factors to determine whether an effective implied waiver has been given. For instance, in State v. Vickers, 306 N.C. 90, 291 S.E. 2d 599 (1982), our Supreme Court found a valid waiver based on evidence showing the defendant was advised of his rights, acknowledged he understood those rights, was coherent at the time, and was neither coerced nor promised a reward for making the statement. Similar factors were cited in State v. Whitt, 299 N.C. 393, 261 S.E. 2d 914 (1980), in which a court found a valid waiver based on a showing that the defendant had been read his rights, signed a form indicating he understood those rights, was sober at the time, had not been coerced or threatened, and could write his name.\nIn the case before us, there was no evidence of threats or promises of reward, and there was evidence defendant could carry on a conversation in English and that he had been read his rights twice. This was sufficient evidence of voluntariness to eliminate the trial court\u2019s duty to exclude the confession sua sponte. This assignment is overruled.\nDefendant next argues the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss on the grounds that there was insufficient competent evidence to go to the jury on either charge against defendant. We disagree. A motion for dismissal, like a motion for nonsuit, tests the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury. State v. Jenkins, 300 N.C. 578, 268 S.E. 2d 458 (1980), citing State v. Everhart, 291 N.C. 700, 231 S.E. 2d 604 (1977). A motion for dismissal or nonsuit should be considered in the light most favorable to the State and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference from the evidence presented. Jenkins, supra, citing, State v. McKinney, 288 N.C. 113, 215 S.E. 2d 578 (1975). \u201cIf there is substantial evidence \u2014whether direct, circumstantial or both \u2014 to support a finding that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, a case for the jury is made and nonsuit should be denied.\u201d Id. (Additional citations omitted.)\nIn reviewing a denial of a motion for nonsuit or dismissal, appellate courts may consider only whether there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury. State v. Jenkins, supra, State v. Stevens, 9 N.C. App. 665, 177 S.E. 2d 339 (1970).\nIn the case at bar, the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, was ample to permit the case to go to the jury. Evidence for the State tended to show that defendant was the occupant of the mobile home and that the contraband found there was in his actual or constructive control. Finally, there was evidence of defendant\u2019s intent to sell, based on defendant\u2019s statements and the fact that scales were found in the search of the home. This assignment is overruled.\nDefendant next argues that the trial judge erred in sentencing defendant to two jail terms. We agree. This issue is controlled by our Supreme Court\u2019s decision in State v. McGill, 296 N.C. 564, 251 S.E. 2d 616 (1979), in which the court held that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy forbids punishment of a defendant for both possession with intent to sell marijuana and possession of more than one ounce of marijuana, when the convictions are based upon possession of the same substance and arise out of the same transactions.\nIn cases in which a defendant is convicted of two offenses in violation of the double jeopardy bar, judgment must be arrested upon one of the convictions. Where the offenses are of equal severity, there appears no set rule concerning which sentence should be stricken. See, e.g., State v. Carter, 55 N.C. App. 192, 284 S.E. 2d 733 (1982) (defendant convicted of larceny and felonious possession of same property, possession of stolen property conviction stricken); State v. Raynor, 33 N.C. App. 698, 236 S.E. 2d 307 (1977) (conviction of assault on an officer and resisting arrest. Judgment arrested on assault charges); State v. Fambrough, 28 N.C. App. 214, 220 S.E. 2d 370 (1975) (defendant convicted of armed robbery of a pistol and armed robbery of money, judgment arrested on armed robbery of money). Compare, where there are convictions for two crimes, one of which is a lesser included offense of the other, the court will strike the sentence for the lesser included offense. State v. Hatcher, 277 N.C. 380, 177 S.E. 2d 892 (1970).\nWe hold, for the sake of consistency, that where judgment must be arrested upon one of two sentences of equal severity because of a double jeopardy violation, the sentence which appears later on the docket, or is second of two counts of a single indictment, or is the second of two indictments, will be stricken. See State v. Fambrough, supra, arresting second charge on docket, but see State v. Raynor, supra, setting aside first charge. Applying this rule to the case at bar, judgment must be arrested on the conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to sell.\nDefendant\u2019s final argument is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and should therefore be granted a new trial. Defendant bases his argument on the following acts (or lack thereof) by his trial attorney: failure to object to hearsay testimony concerning control of the mobile home, failure to object to introduction of defendant\u2019s confession, failure to object to introduction of the result of a test conducted on substances seized during the search of defendant\u2019s home and failure to object to imposition of jail terms for both offenses with which defendant was charged, in violation of the McGill rule.\nFormerly, our appellate courts measured effectiveness of counsel based on the \u201cfarce or mockery\u201d standard. Under this test, a defendant who sought a new trial based on charges of ineffective assistance of counsel had the burden of proving: (1) the conduct of counsel rendered the trial a \u201cmockery\u201d or \u201cfarce\u201d and (2) that counsel\u2019s incompetence prejudiced the defendant in some way. State v. Pennell, 54 N.C. App. 252, 283 S.E. 2d 397 (1981), appeal dismissed, 304 N.C. 732, 288 S.E. 2d 804 (1982); Note, \u201cCompetence, Prejudice and the Right to \u2018Effective\u2019 Assistance of Counsel,\u201d 60 N.C. L. Rev. 185 (1981).\nThe \u201cfarce or mockery\u201d test was abandoned in favor of a \u201crange of competence\u201d test in State v. Weaver, 306 N.C. 629, 295 S.E. 2d 375 (1982). Under the test adopted in Weaver, counsel must perform \u201cwithin the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.\u201d See also State v. Vickers, supra, citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed. 2d 763 (1970). While relatively few cases have been decided since the \u201crange of competence\u201d test was adopted, there has been no indication that our Supreme Court intended to change the requirement that defendant carry the burden of proof of showing prejudice. In the case before us, defendant has either failed to show prejudice, or has failed to demonstrate that trial counsel\u2019s performance fell below the range of competence required of attorneys in criminal trials.\nThe judgment and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to sell is\nVacated.\nAs to the judgment and sentence for possession\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Ann B. Petersen, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAMON A. PAGON\nNo. 8211SC1213\n(Filed 4 October 1983)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 76.3\u2014 failure to exclude confession on court\u2019s own motion\nThere was sufficient evidence of voluntariness of defendant\u2019s in-custody statements to eliminate the trial court\u2019s duty to exclude the statements on its own motion where there was evidence that defendant had been read his rights twice and that, although defendant\u2019s native language was Spanish, he could carry on a conversation in English, and where there was no evidence of threats or promises of reward.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014 possession of marijuana \u2014 possession with intent to sell \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution of defendant for possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to sell where it tended to show that defendant was the occupant of a mobile home in which marijuana was found; handheld scales were found in a search of the mobile home; and defendant admitted to officers that he was selling marijuana because it was his only way of making a living.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 26.5; Narcotics \u00a7 1.3\u2014 possession of more than ounce of marijuana-possession with intent to sell \u2014 punishment for both offenses \u2014double jeopardy\nThe constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy forbids punishment of a defendant for both possession of more than one ounce of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to sell when the convictions are based upon possession of the same substance and arise out of the same transactions.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 127\u2014 two sentences of equal severity \u2014 arrest of judgment on one sentence\nWhere judgment must be arrested upon one of two sentences of equal severity because of a double jeopardy violation, the sentence which appears later on the docket, or is second of two counts of a single indictment, or is the second of two indictments, will be stricken.\n5. Constitutional Law 8 48\u2014 effective assistance of counsel\nA defendant charged with narcotics offenses was not denied the effective assistance of counsel because of the failure of his counsel to object to hearsay testimony concerning control of the mobile home in which narcotics were found, failure of his counsel to object to defendant\u2019s confession, failure of his counsel to object to the results of a test conducted on substances seized during the search of the mobile home, and failure of his counsel to object to imposition of jail terms for both offenses with which defendant was charged.\nAppeal by defendant from Britt, Judge. Judgments entered 25 May 1982 in JOHNSTON County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 September 1983.\nDefendant Ramon A. Pagon was arrested 22 January 1982 and, after a search of his mobile home, charged with possession of more than one ounce of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Evidence for the State tended to show the following events. Police officers knocked at defendant\u2019s door before the search, and when there was no response, broke a small window, reached through it, and unlocked the door. The officers entered the home and found defendant and another man, named Lawhorn, sitting in the living room. Police read the search warrant and Miranda warnings to both men. Neither responded. A search of the home was conducted and revealed about thirty cigarettes in a pepper shaker in the kitchen, two or three cigarettes in defendant\u2019s pocket and a plastic bag in a dresser in a bedroom. Later tests identified the substance in the cigarettes and in the bag as marijuana. Pipes, handheld scales and cigarette papers were also discovered during the search. Lawhorn was not arrested, but defendant was placed under arrest and taken to the police station with the officers. On the way to the station, while still in the squad car, defendant was again read his Miranda warnings. Although defendant\u2019s native language is Spanish, the Miranda warnings were given both times in English and no attempt was made to speak to defendant in Spanish. After the second warnings, defendant made several statements in English to police. He stated that he was angry that the trailer window had been broken, that he was selling marijuana because it was his only way of making a living, and that he had a doctor\u2019s prescription for the marijuana. Defendant did not expressly indicate that he understood the Miranda warnings before he made the statement, nor did he expressly waive his right to remain silent.\nA two-count indictment was returned against defendant, charging him with possession of more than one ounce of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Following a one-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of both counts of the indictment. Defendant was sentenced to two two-year jail sentences, to run consecutively. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Ann B. Petersen, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0295-01", "first_page_order": 327, "last_page_order": 333 }