State v. Villarreal, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Oct. 1, 2024)

In this Yadkin County case, defendant appealed his convictions for accessory after the fact to robbery with a dangerous weapon and felonious breaking or entering, and felonious possession of stolen goods, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to dismiss the accessory after the fact charges for insufficient evidence, and (2) ordering restitution unsupported by competent evidence. The Court of Appeals found no error in (1), but in (2) vacated the restitution award and remanded to the trial court for a new hearing on the appropriate amount of restitution.

In July of 2020, defendant discussed a potential robbery with three other individuals. Although defendant did not participate in the robbery, he did participate in discussions before the act, and helped discover two backpacks filled with gold and silver coins and bars hidden after the robbery by the principal. At trial, defendant moved to dismiss the charges, but the trial court denied the motion. Defendant was subsequently ordered to pay $12,264.70 in restitution in addition to his sentence.

Taking up (1), defendant argued that the State did not present evidence showing he personally assisted the principal “in escaping or attempting to escape detection, arrest, or punishment.” Slip Op. at 8. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that defendant helped search for the backpacks hidden by the principal, and after successfully locating them, “put the backpacks in his car, drove them to the home he shared with his mother, and hid them there for some time before handing them off.” Id. at 9. The State also presented evidence that defendant knew of the plans to rob the victims and hide the stolen goods, including being present for discussions about the plans and discussing the hiding place of the backpacks after the robbery. The court determined that this evidence was sufficient to support the elements of accessory after the fact for defendant’s convictions.

Moving to (2), the court noted that G.S. 15A-1340.34 permitted ordering restitution, but that evidence at trial must support the award. The court looked to State v. Moore, 365 N.C. 283 (2011), for the guideline that when there is “some evidence” but not evidence “specific enough to support the award,” the appropriate course of action is to remand to the trial court for a determination of the correct amount. Id. at 12. Here, the worksheet outlining restitution was not itemized and did not represent sufficient evidence to support the award, justifying remand for further proceedings.