Heard in the Court of Appeals February 5, 2015
Halifax County. Nos. 96 CRS 328-29.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amy Kunstling Irene, for the State.
Kimberly P. Hoppin for Defendant.
STEPHENS, Judge. Judges GEER and DILLON concur.
On certiorari review of an order entered 13
August 2013 by Judge Phyllis Gorham in Halifax County Superior Court.
Factual and Procedural Background
Defendant Robert Steven Doisey appeals from the denial of his " Motion to Locate and Preserve Evidence" and " Motion for Post-Conviction DNA Testing." We dismiss.
In April 1997, a jury convicted Defendant of two counts of first-degree statutory sex offense, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to 339-416 months in prison. The charges against Defendant arose from his statutory rape of D.H., the then-12-year-old daughter of Defendant's girlfriend. Defendant appealed from the judgment entered upon his convictions. See State v. Doisey, 138 N.C.App. 620, 532 S.E.2d 240, disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 678, 545 S.E.2d 434 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1177, 121 S.Ct. 1153, 148 L.Ed.2d 1015 (2001). While that appeal was pending, Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (" MAR" ) in the trial court, alleging that D.H. had recanted her trial testimony. Id. at 623, 532 S.E.2d at 243. This Court accordingly remanded the matter to the trial court, which held a hearing in July 1998. Id. At that hearing, D.H. recanted her trial testimony. Id. At the close of the first hearing, Judge Louis B. Meyer took the matter under advisement. Id. Subsequently, Judge Meyer became seriously ill and was unable to rule on Defendant's MAR. Id. The matter was reassigned to Judge Thomas D. Haigwood, who held a second hearing in December 1999. Id. At the second hearing, D.H. recanted her recantation, stating that her trial testimony had been accurate. Id. at 624, 532 S.E.2d at 243. The trial court denied Defendant's MAR. Id. Defendant appealed from the denial of his MAR, and this Court considered that ruling along with Defendant's arguments on direct appeal. Id. at 624-25, 532 S.E.2d at 243-44.
In its opinion, this Court found that certain evidence was improperly admitted at Defendant's trial, but the admission of that evidence did not constitute plain error. Id. at 627, 532 S.E.2d at 245. This Court also determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was " not well satisfied that the testimony of [D.H.] given at trial was false," and thus, did not err in denying Defendant's MAR. Id. at 628, 532 S.E.2d at 245-46.
In 2001 and 2002, Defendant filed pro se MARs based on changes in the law regarding expert testimony on sexual abuse and requesting post-conviction DNA testing. Each MAR was summarily denied. In 2002, this Court denied Defendant's ...