in the Court of Appeals 20 February 2018.
by Defendant from order entered 3 March 2017 by Judge Alan Z.
Thornburg in Buncombe County Superior Court, Nos. 08 CRS
122-124; 08 CRS 51510-51524
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney
General Joseph L. Hyde, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate
Defender Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, for the
Michael Randall ("Defendant") appeals from an order
entered by the trial court denying his motion for
post-conviction DNA testing.
2008, Defendant pleaded guilty to twelve counts of
first-degree rape and six counts of statutory rape. He was
sentenced pursuant to his plea agreement to a minimum of 240
and a maximum of 297 months.
2016, Defendant filed a motion with the trial court, pro
se, seeking DNA testing of evidence he alleged was
collected by law enforcement during their investigation,
including vials of blood and saliva, a bag of clothes, and a
rape kit. Defendant contended that the evidence he sought to
have tested "would prove that  Defendant was NOT the
perpetrator of the crimes allegedly committed on or between
the years 2006, and 2007, and the requested D.N.A. testing is
material to  [D]efendant's exoneration." Defendant
also filed a motion for appropriate relief ("MAR"),
filed several addendums, and requested an inventory of
biological evidence related to the investigation.
trial court denied Defendant's motions. Defendant has
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with our
Court in the event that he has failed to properly preserve
his right of appeal. We hereby grant Defendant's petition
as to any potential defect in order to reach the merits of
appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1)
denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing, and (2)
failing to order an inventory of biological evidence. We
address each argument in turn.
Motion for Post-Conviction DNA Testing
standard of review for denial of a motion for post-conviction
DNA testing is "analogous [to the] standard of review
for a denial of a motion for appropriate relief . . . because
the trial court sits as finder of fact in both
circumstances." State v.Lane, __ N.C.
__, __, 809 S.E.2d 568, 574 (2018). Accordingly, the trial
court's findings of fact are "binding on [our] Court
if they ...