STATE v. WOODARD (2025)

Defendant Ryell Carlos Woodard appeals the judgment entered consistent with the jury's verdict convicting him of possession of a firearm by a felon.

On appeal, Defendant argues that N.C.G.S. § 14-451.1, the statute under which Defendant was convicted, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him.

We note that Defendant failed to make these constitutional arguments during his trial. Accordingly, he has failed to preserve these arguments. See State v. Bursell, 372 N.C. 196, 199 (2019) (constitutional arguments not made at trial are not preserved for appellate review). Rule 2 of our Rules of Appellate Procedure, though, permits us to consider Defendant's unpreserved arguments where review is necessary “[t]o prevent manifest injustice to a party, or to expedite decision in the public interest.” N.C. R. App. P. 2; see State v. Radomski, 294 N.C. App. 108, 112 (2024). However, our Supreme Court has instructed that Rule 2 may only be used in “exceptional circumstances.” State v. Campbell, 369 N.C. 599, 603 (2017).

In determining whether to invoke Rule 2, as Defendant urges us to do, we note our Court has recently held the statute of which Defendant complains is constitutional. See State v. Nanes, 297 N.C. App. 863 (2025); State v. Ducker, 917 S.E.2d 266 (N.C. Ct. App. 2025). And we are bound by those holdings. See In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384 (1989). Accordingly, based on binding authority, Defendant's arguments lack merit.

Accordingly, we conclude Defendant has failed to meet his burden to show why we should invoke Rule 2 of our Rules of Appellate Procedure to consider the constitutional arguments he raises on appeal. We, thus, hold that Defendant received a fair trial, free of reversible error.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

DILLON, Chief Judge.

Judges STROUD and GORE concur.