State v. WrightÂ, 252 N.C. App. 501

Regis Lee Wright was indicted for four counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon after entering convenience stores with his face covered and a gun in hand and taking money in the presence of clerks.
At trial the State presented uncontradicted testimony that Wright held a gun during the Kangaroo Express, Mike’s Food Store, and Fastop robberies; witnesses at Kangaroo and Mike’s said the gun was seen though neither clerk testified that the gun was actually pointed at them; one clerk (Buehner) said she was "never scared."
The jury convicted Wright of armed robbery for Kangaroo Express, Mike’s Food Store, and Fastop; acquitted as to One Stop. Sentences for convictions were imposed and Wright appealed.
On appeal Wright argued (1) the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of common-law robbery for the Kangaroo and Mike’s robberies because the State did not prove the gun endangered or threatened life; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that lesser instruction and failing to move to dismiss the Kangaroo charge on insufficiency grounds.
The trial court had denied a motion to dismiss and instructed the jury only on armed robbery.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: because the State’s uncontradicted evidence established each element of armed robbery (including possession/use of a dangerous weapon seen during the robberies), no lesser-included instruction was required and counsel’s omissions were not prejudicial.

Issue	State's Argument	Wright's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury on common-law robbery as a lesser-included offense	Armed robbery was fully supported: witnesses saw defendant holding a gun during the robberies, satisfying the element that life was endangered or threatened; no lesser instruction required	The gun was not actually pointed at victims and a clerk testified she was not scared, so the State failed to prove the life-endangering/threatening element and the jury should have been instructed on common-law robbery	No plain error. Uncontradicted evidence that defendant held a dangerous weapon visible to victims/witnesses satisfied armed-robbery elements; lesser instruction not required
Whether Wright received ineffective assistance because counsel did not request a common-law robbery instruction or specifically move to dismiss Kangaroo charge	No prejudice: the evidence supported armed robbery so requesting those items would have been futile	Counsel’s failures deprived Wright of a viable defense and an instruction on the lesser offense	Denied. Because armed-robbery elements were supported, counsel’s omissions were not prejudicial and claim fails

State v. Hill, 365 N.C. 273 (Supreme Court holding that victim’s subjective fear is not required where weapon possession/use endangered or threatened life)
State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55 (Supreme Court rejecting argument that victim must demonstrate fear for life for armed-robbery element)
State v. Melvin, 53 N.C. App. 421 (affirming armed-robbery where defendant held a pistol that was visible to victim during robbery)
State v. Gibbons, 303 N.C. 484 (distinguishing cases where weapon presence was unknown to victim and noting mere possession alone can be insufficient)
State v. Leazer, 353 N.C. 234 (explaining that unwarranted lesser-included instructions can undermine rationality of verdict)
State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (plain-error review is rare; errors must seriously affect fairness or integrity of proceedings)