State v. ThorpeÂ
253 N.C. App. 210
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Edward Thorpe (aka Marquis Tayshawn Evans) was indicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges and pleaded guilty on February 9, 2016, receiving a consolidated sentence of 77 to 105 months.
- Before accepting the plea, Thorpe moved to suppress use of a prior conviction (assault inflicting serious injury) that had been used to support two habitual misdemeanor assault indictments, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- Thorpe testified he was indigent at the time of the prior conviction, had counsel on other pending matters, but did not have counsel for that particular case and would not have proceeded without one.
- The State introduced Wake County Clerk electronic records showing the prior misdemeanor case had a designation indicating a retained attorney (notations “R” and “N/A” reflecting a retained counsel whose name was illegible or not recorded).
- The trial court found Thorpe proved indigence and that he did not waive counsel, but concluded the clerk’s records—entitled to a presumption of regularity—showed he had counsel for the prior conviction; the motion to suppress was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior conviction must be suppressed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-980 because it was obtained in violation of the right to counsel | State: The clerk’s official records show Thorpe had retained counsel for the prior conviction; records are presumptively regular. | Thorpe: He was indigent, had no counsel in that case, and did not waive counsel, so the prior conviction must be suppressed. | Trial court / Court of Appeals: Denied suppression — clerk’s records rebutted defendant’s testimony; presumption of regularity stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132 (sets standard for appellate review of suppression-denial factual findings)
- State v. Hensley, 201 N.C. App. 607 (clarifies de novo review of conclusions of law on suppression issues)
- State v. Jordan, 174 N.C. App. 479 (defendant must prove indigence, lack of counsel, and no waiver to suppress prior conviction; presumption of regularity applies to final judgments)
- State v. Belton, 169 N.C. App. 350 (official acts of clerks are afforded a rebuttable presumption of regularity)
- State v. Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309 (trial court must make findings of fact on suppression motions; oral findings suffice when evidence is not materially conflicting)