245 N.C. App. 307
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jeffrey Scott Cox pled guilty in 2008 to one count of statutory rape (out of multiple indictments) and was sentenced to 300–369 months with satellite-based monitoring to follow; no plea hearing transcript is in the record.
- In April 2013 Cox filed a pro se motion for postconviction DNA testing, asserting hairs, blood, sperm, and DNA swabbings were untested or could now be tested more accurately and that testing could exonerate him; he supplied an affidavit of innocence and evidence of indigence.
- Cox also moved to locate/preserve evidence, requested appointment of counsel, and later renewed his motions; an S.B.I. lab report was referenced but was not included in the record on appeal.
- At hearings the trial court observed the S.B.I. items may have been analyzed and noted prior postconviction proceedings (motion for appropriate relief denied and appellate public defender declined further action).
- On 7 November 2013 the trial court denied Cox’s motion for DNA testing and refused to appoint counsel, finding Cox failed to show the requisite materiality and noting the MAR had been previously upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must appoint counsel for indigent pro se movant seeking postconviction DNA testing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-269(c) | State: counsel appointment requires movant be indigent and show testing may be material; court may deny where movant fails that showing or evidence unavailable | Cox: his pro se motion alleged indigence and materiality (untested biological evidence; testing could contradict conviction), so counsel must be appointed | Held: Denial affirmed. Cox failed to show materiality (conclusory assertions; no S.B.I. report in record; evidence availability unclear), so appointment of counsel and testing not required |
| Whether a guilty plea precludes a threshold showing of materiality for DNA testing | State argued guilty plea may prevent materiality showing | Cox argued testing could still contradict the factual basis and show another perpetrator | Court noted unresolved question in prior cases and did not decide it; instead affirmed denial on Cox’s failure to show materiality |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gardner, 227 N.C. App. 364 (cited for standard of review and that § 15A-269 does not require specific findings)
- State v. Foster, 222 N.C. App. 199 (cited for failure of conclusory materiality allegations)
- State v. Hardison, 143 N.C. App. 114 (cited for movant’s burden to prove facts by preponderance)
- Couch v. Bradley, 179 N.C. App. 852 (cited on civil requirement for requested specific findings)
- State v. Collins, 761 S.E.2d 914 (cited for requirement that movant provide specific reasons why testing is materially probative)