Appeal denied for man sentenced in 2020 Wilmington attempted breaking and entering incident
WILMINGTON, N.C. (WECT) - Garry Junior Jones, 45, had his appeal denied in relation to a 2020 incident that involved the attempted breaking and entering of a Wilmington home.
“The State’s evidence at trial showed, ‘a little bit after midnight’ on 15 November 2020, Defendant entered the yard of a private home in Wilmington and ‘was trying to get into’ the homeowner’s storage shed. Specifically, Defendant ‘grabb[ed] the door’ and ‘rattle[d] the knob’ in a way the homeowner said the homeowner would do ‘to make sure it’s locked,’” stated the court in its decision.
The owner of the home called 911 after being alerted by a security camera. Police later found Jones “concealed” behind a vehicle carrying bolt cutters, a flashlight, a “box cutter that had a screwdriver head” and a steel pipe.
On March 8 of 2021, Jones was indicted on:
- Felony attempted breaking and entering
- Possession of implements of a housebreaking/burglary tools
He subsequently pled guilty to these charges, as well as habitual felon status. Jones was sentenced on July 29, 2021, to 35-54 months in prison.
The grounds for the appeal stemmed from the use of evidence from a prior case involving Jones during the trial in reference to the Nov. 15, 2020, incident.
“After reviewing all the issues on appeal, the trial court did not commit an error. The past breaking and entering incident was sufficiently similar and temporally proximate to the charged conduct, and the State introduced it for a permissible purpose. As a result the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of the past incident on Rule 404(b) grounds. The trial court also did not err in admitting the evidence about the prior incident on Rule 403 grounds because its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Finally, the State properly authenticated surveillance footage of the prior breaking and entering incident, and, even if it had been error to admit the footage, Defendant could not demonstrate prejudice. Therefore, we conclude there was no error,” explained the court.
In their decision, the court defines Rule 404(b) as:
Additionally, in regards to Rule 403, the court states:
Copyright 2023 WECT. All rights reserved.