This post summaries the published opinions in criminal cases issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on April 15, 2026.
Sufficient evidence supported denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss charges of accessing a government computer to defraud and obtaining property by false pretenses.
State v. Friend, No. COA25-908 (N.C. Ct. App. April 15, 2026) (Davidson County). On October 1, 2020, the defendant went to the Register of Deeds office with a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer property from John and Janice Jenkins to “Tahira Akila Dalila –Trust.” The deed appeared to be signed by Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins on April 1, 2020, and was notarized by Christina Horton. The defendant said he wished to have the deed recorded, and the Register of Deeds recorded the deed.
Investigating the matter, Detective Dexter Short with the Davidson County Sheriff’s Department spoke with Mrs. Jenkins, who stated she did not intend to sell her property and that she and her husband could not have signed the deed on April 1, 2020. Detective Short also discovered that the deed’s notary, Christina Horton, had in January 2019 changed her name to Tahira Akila Dalila.
The defendant was indicted for accessing a government computer to defraud, obtaining property by false pretenses, forgery, and habitual felon status. The matter came on for trial on February 17, 2025. Upon the defendant’s motion, the trial court dismissed the forgery charge. The defendant was convicted by a jury of accessing a government computer to defraud and false pretenses and pled guilty to habitual felon status. The trial court entered judgment, and the defendant appealed.
Before the Court of Appeals, the defendant first argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of accessing a government computer to defraud due to the insufficiency of the evidence. It is unlawful to willfully access or cause to be accessed any government computer for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud. G.S. 14-454.1. Here, an employee of the Register of Deeds testified that the defendant visited the office and presented a deed representing that Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins intended to transfer their property, and the defendant confirmed several times that he wished to have the deed recorded. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the Court of Appeals found the defendant presented a fraudulent deed and caused the Register of Deeds office to use its computer system to record the document. It concluded the trial court therefore did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The defendant next argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of obtaining property by false pretenses. A person is guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses if the person makes (1) a false representation, (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive, (3) which does in fact deceive, and (4) by which the person obtains or attempts to obtain anything of value. G.S. 14-100. Here, the State presented evidence that the defendant submitted a deed falsely representing that the Jenkinses intended to transfer their property. The Court of Appeals found this evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant made a false representation in an attempt to obtain property. It concluded the trial court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to his right to file a motion for appropriate relief.
State v. McDowell, No. COA25-993 (N.C. Ct. App. April 15, 2026) (Jackson County). On January 29, 2024, deputies with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office were driving on Old Cullowhee Road when they observed the defendant driving his white Ford Ranger with a Mississippi license plate. Believing the vehicle was not in compliance with license plate laws, the deputies conducted a traffic stop. The defendant refused to exit the vehicle, and the deputies physically removed him. Frisking the defendant for weapons, one deputy found a stun gun in the defendant’s waistband. Further search of the defendant’s person revealed a bag of methamphetamine and a glass pipe.
The defendant was indicted for possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, carrying a concealed weapon, and two counts of resisting a public officer. The matter came on for trial on March 11, 2025. The defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and carrying a concealed weapon. The trial court entered judgment, and the defendant appealed.
Before the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) when defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress evidence. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that IAC claims may be decided on direct appeal when it is apparent that no further investigation is required, but when IAC claims are brought prematurely, the appellate court may dismiss the claims without prejudice to allow the defendant to file a motion for appropriate relief (MAR). Further, the Court of Appeals said, it will rarely be appropriate for an appellate court to decide IAC claims arising from failure to seek the suppression of evidence because a reviewing court cannot know what other evidence might have been produced at a suppression hearing that never occurred. Here, the Court of Appeals concluded the cold record was insufficient to review the IAC claim, and it dismissed the claim without prejudice to the defendant’s right to file an MAR.