{
  "id": 8520381,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ERY LOCKWOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lockwood",
  "decision_date": "1985-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 8521SC734",
  "first_page": "205",
  "last_page": "208",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 205"
    }
  ],
  "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": "310 S.E. 2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 816",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525966
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0816-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 S.E. 2d 394",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572226,
        8572123,
        8572252,
        8572190,
        8572159
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0617-04",
        "/nc/289/0617-01",
        "/nc/289/0617-05",
        "/nc/289/0617-03",
        "/nc/289/0617-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S.E. 2d 743",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550193
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/28/0478-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 6545,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.829,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.635921824013678
    },
    "sha256": "284adca7e9c27b193315fb4cf67da7024a836d2752889071f8e05de0d1b399ac",
    "simhash": "1:a8b7c77f8208032a",
    "word_count": 1025
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:04.225821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ERY LOCKWOOD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of the test taken with the Breathalyzer Model 2000. He argues that the chemical analyst who administered the test did not follow the regulations of the Commission for Health Services for sequential breath testing and that the Commission failed to set out the time requirements for sequential breath testing as required by G.S. 20-139.1. We disagree with both of defendant\u2019s arguments.\nG.S. 20-139.1 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n(b3) Sequential Breath Test Required. \u2014By January 1, 1985, the regulations of the Commission for Health Services governing the administration of chemical analyses of the breath must require the testing of at least duplicate sequential breath samples. Those regulations must provide:\n(1) A specification as to the minimum observation period before collection of the first breath sample and the time requirements as to collection of second and subsequent samples.\nThe Commission for Health Services provided in 10 N.C. Admin. Code 7B .0102(18) that the observation period prior to the collection of a breath sample is fifteen minutes. The procedure for administering a test with the Model 2000 Breathalyzer after the observation period is set out in 10 N.C. Admin. Code 7B .0346. This regulation instructs the operator to collect the first breath sample when \u201cblow sample\u201d appears on the machine and to collect the second sample when these words reappear, indicating that the machine is ready for a second analysis. The regulation further provides that if the alcohol concentration of these two samples differs by more than .02, a third or subsequent test shall be administered \u201cas soon as feasible\u201d by repeating the enumerated steps.\nIn this case the record clearly establishes that the chemical analyst followed the required operational procedure when he collected two breath samples from defendant with the Model 2000 Breathalyzer. The affidavit of the chemical analyst indicates that he observed defendant for more than thirty minutes before collecting the first breath sample. The affidavit further shows that the analyst held a valid permit to operate this breathalyzer and that he performed the test \u201cin accordance with the methods approved by the Commission for Health Services as set forth in 10 NCAC 7B .0300.\u201d This evidence satisfies the requirements of G.S. 20-139.1 and entitled the test results to be admitted into evidence. State v. Hurley, 28 N.C. App. 478, 221 S.E. 2d 743, disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 617, 223 S.E. 2d 394 (1976). Thus, defendant\u2019s argument that the chemical analyst did not follow the proper operational procedures is without merit.\nWe also find no merit in defendant\u2019s argument that the Commission of Health Services failed to set out time requirements between the first and second breath tests as required by G.S. 20-139.1. The operational procedure in 10 N.C. Admin. Code 7B .0346 designates a specific time, which is at the reappearance of the words \u201cblow sample,\u201d for the collection of the second breath sample.\nDefendant also contends that the trial court erred in finding as an aggravating factor that \u201cdefendant\u2019s driving was especially reckless because the only evidence in front of the court was the assistant district attorney\u2019s recital in open court that the defendant was charged with running a flashing red light on the same citation as the driving while impaired charge.\u201d We agree.\nThere was no evidence presented at the sentencing hearing in the present case which indicated that defendant had been driving recklessly when he was charged with driving while impaired. Although the assistant district attorney stated that defendant had been charged with passing through a red light without stopping, the reqord shows that there was no evidence before the court to support this assertion. This statement, standing alone, is not evidence that defendant had been driving recklessly. State v. Harris, 65 N.C. App. 816, 310 S.E. 2d 120 (1984). Therefore, we hold that the court erred in finding as an aggravating factor that defendant\u2019s driving had been especially reckless, and the case is remanded for resentencing.\nNo error on the motion; remanded for resentencing.\nJudges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State.",
      "Alexander, Wright, Parrish, Hinshaw, Tash and Newton, by Carl F. Parrish, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ERY LOCKWOOD\nNo. 8521SC734\n(Filed 3 December 1985)\n1. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 126.3\u2014 breathalyzer test \u2014 proper procedure followed\nThe record established that a chemical analyst followed the required operational procedure when he collected two breath samples from defendant with a breathalyzer where the analyst\u2019s affidavit indicated that he observed defendant for more than thirty minutes before collecting the first breath sample, that he had a valid permit to operate the breathalyzer, and that he followed the regulations of the Commission for Health Services for sequential breath testing in performing the tests.\n2. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 126.3\u2014 regulation for time between breathalyzer tests\nA regulation of the Commission for Health Services instructing a breathalyzer operator to collect a second breath sample when the words \u201cblow sample\u201d reappear on the machine complied with the requirement of N.C.G.S. 20-139.1(b3)(l) that the Commission designate the time requirement between the first and second breath test.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 driving while impaired \u2014 reckless driving as aggravating factor \u2014insufficient evidence\nThe trial court erred in finding as an aggravating factor for driving while impaired that defendant\u2019s driving was especially reckless based upon the prosecutor\u2019s statement that defendant had been charged with passing through a red light on the same citation as the driving while impaired charge where there was no evidence before the court to support this assertion.\nAppeal by defendant from Morgan, Judge. Judgment entered 16 April 1985 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 November 1985.\nThis is a proceeding wherein defendant was charged with driving while impaired, a violation of G.S. 20-138.1. Defendant moved to suppress evidence regarding the results of a breathalyzer test, which motion was denied. Preserving his exception to the denial of the motion, defendant pleaded guilty and appealed from the judgment entered.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State.\nAlexander, Wright, Parrish, Hinshaw, Tash and Newton, by Carl F. Parrish, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0205-01",
  "first_page_order": 237,
  "last_page_order": 240
}