Demand a Full Independent Review of Dwayne G. Davis’s Vance County Case
The Issue
How many acknowledged errors, remands, disputed findings, sentencing questions, and constitutional claims should exist in one criminal case before the entire record receives a fresh and meaningful review?
This petition calls for a full, fair, independent, and transparent review of the case of Dwayne G. Davis in Vance County, North Carolina.
Dwayne was convicted in 2019 of trafficking heroin, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number. His case has since gone through years of post-conviction litigation and two separate rounds before the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
And the appellate record itself shows that mistakes occurred.
In 2024, in State v. Davis, COA23-557, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the trial court had used the wrong suppression ruling when reviewing an important issue involving Dwayne’s written statement to police. The Court of Appeals sent that issue back so the trial court could properly consider whether Dwayne’s 2018 motion to suppress had been wrongly denied.
The same appellate decision also found a sentencing error.
A New Jersey robbery conviction had been used to assign Dwayne six prior-record points and treat him as Prior Record Level III for sentencing on his firearm convictions. But the Court of Appeals found that the State had failed to provide the New Jersey statute necessary to establish that the New Jersey offense was substantially similar to North Carolina armed robbery.
The Court of Appeals therefore reversed that portion of the sentencing decision and expressly remanded the matter for resentencing, allowing both sides to present additional evidence.
After the case returned to Vance County, the trial court again ruled against Dwayne. On September 3, 2024, the court again found the New Jersey robbery substantially similar to North Carolina armed robbery and entered an amended judgment consolidating Dwayne’s two firearm sentences. On September 13, 2024, the court again denied relief concerning his statement to police.
Dwayne appealed again.
On August 19, 2026, in COA25-11, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court.
But what the Court of Appeals acknowledged in that opinion deserves public attention.
The appellate court determined that several portions of what the trial court labeled “findings of fact” were actually recitations of witness testimony rather than independent factual findings.
The Court of Appeals also expressly found that the trial court articulated an incorrect legal standard in one of its conclusions concerning whether Dwayne’s confession was voluntary.
The appellate court nevertheless affirmed because it concluded that the remainder of the trial court’s analysis applied the proper totality-of-the-circumstances standard and that other findings were supported by competent evidence.
The circumstances surrounding Dwayne’s statement have remained heavily disputed.
Dwayne testified that officers placed psychological pressure on him involving members of his family, that he accepted responsibility to protect his grandmother and others, that an officer instructed him to add specific language concerning “fifty grams, two guns, and paraphernalia,” and that his Miranda rights were given only after he had written the statement.
Law enforcement disputed his account. Officers testified that Miranda warnings were given first, that Dwayne signed a waiver before confessing, and that no improper promises or threats were made. The Court of Appeals ultimately accepted that competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
That disagreement is precisely why the underlying documents matter.
The public should be able to understand what the actual Miranda waiver shows, what the contemporaneous police reports show, what the suppression transcripts show, and how the competing evidence was evaluated.
The sentencing issue also remains striking.
In its 2026 opinion, the Court of Appeals recognized that New Jersey first-degree robbery can be committed in certain circumstances without the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, while North Carolina armed robbery requires the use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
The court nevertheless concluded that the two offenses were substantially similar for sentencing purposes.
Dwayne also previously raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involving multiple attorneys. The Court of Appeals rejected those claims after concluding that he had not demonstrated the prejudice required for relief. Those rulings are part of the record and should be accurately understood—not hidden or misstated.
His case also contains an unusual plea-negotiation history. The appellate record describes discussions in which law enforcement expressed interest in a Bentley Dwayne had driven to court, and forfeiture of that vehicle was discussed in connection with a reduced sentence. After it was learned that the Bentley was rented, an older Mercedes was discussed as a possible alternative. Dwayne reported what he believed could be improper conduct. The North Carolina SBI later investigated and concluded that there was no evidence of illegal activity. The Court of Appeals ultimately rejected Dwayne’s related ineffective-assistance claim because it found that he had not established the required prejudice.
We include that history not to accuse anyone of conduct that has not been proven, but because transparency requires presenting the full record—including facts that support Dwayne’s position and facts that courts have relied upon against him.
This petition is not asking the public to declare anyone corrupt.
It is not asking anyone to disregard a court ruling.
And it is not asking for special treatment.
It is asking for scrutiny.
When a person’s liberty is at stake, acknowledged legal errors should matter. Conflicting evidence should matter. The accuracy of sentencing should matter. The effectiveness of legal representation should matter. And when an appellate court sends a case back because errors occurred, the manner in which that mandate is carried out should matter.
We are calling for preservation and meaningful review of the complete record in State v. Dwayne G. Davis, including the original proceedings, suppression proceedings, sentencing and resentencing records, attorney-performance issues, police and Miranda documentation, and all remaining lawful appellate and post-conviction remedies.
We ask that Dwayne’s case be judged on the complete record—not assumptions, incomplete information, or unanswered questions.
A person’s freedom deserves accuracy.
A person’s freedom deserves constitutional fairness.
And when errors are acknowledged, a person’s freedom deserves meaningful review.
Please sign and share this petition to help bring greater scrutiny, transparency, and attention to the case of Dwayne G. Davis.
12
The Issue
How many acknowledged errors, remands, disputed findings, sentencing questions, and constitutional claims should exist in one criminal case before the entire record receives a fresh and meaningful review?
This petition calls for a full, fair, independent, and transparent review of the case of Dwayne G. Davis in Vance County, North Carolina.
Dwayne was convicted in 2019 of trafficking heroin, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number. His case has since gone through years of post-conviction litigation and two separate rounds before the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
And the appellate record itself shows that mistakes occurred.
In 2024, in State v. Davis, COA23-557, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the trial court had used the wrong suppression ruling when reviewing an important issue involving Dwayne’s written statement to police. The Court of Appeals sent that issue back so the trial court could properly consider whether Dwayne’s 2018 motion to suppress had been wrongly denied.
The same appellate decision also found a sentencing error.
A New Jersey robbery conviction had been used to assign Dwayne six prior-record points and treat him as Prior Record Level III for sentencing on his firearm convictions. But the Court of Appeals found that the State had failed to provide the New Jersey statute necessary to establish that the New Jersey offense was substantially similar to North Carolina armed robbery.
The Court of Appeals therefore reversed that portion of the sentencing decision and expressly remanded the matter for resentencing, allowing both sides to present additional evidence.
After the case returned to Vance County, the trial court again ruled against Dwayne. On September 3, 2024, the court again found the New Jersey robbery substantially similar to North Carolina armed robbery and entered an amended judgment consolidating Dwayne’s two firearm sentences. On September 13, 2024, the court again denied relief concerning his statement to police.
Dwayne appealed again.
On August 19, 2026, in COA25-11, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court.
But what the Court of Appeals acknowledged in that opinion deserves public attention.
The appellate court determined that several portions of what the trial court labeled “findings of fact” were actually recitations of witness testimony rather than independent factual findings.
The Court of Appeals also expressly found that the trial court articulated an incorrect legal standard in one of its conclusions concerning whether Dwayne’s confession was voluntary.
The appellate court nevertheless affirmed because it concluded that the remainder of the trial court’s analysis applied the proper totality-of-the-circumstances standard and that other findings were supported by competent evidence.
The circumstances surrounding Dwayne’s statement have remained heavily disputed.
Dwayne testified that officers placed psychological pressure on him involving members of his family, that he accepted responsibility to protect his grandmother and others, that an officer instructed him to add specific language concerning “fifty grams, two guns, and paraphernalia,” and that his Miranda rights were given only after he had written the statement.
Law enforcement disputed his account. Officers testified that Miranda warnings were given first, that Dwayne signed a waiver before confessing, and that no improper promises or threats were made. The Court of Appeals ultimately accepted that competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
That disagreement is precisely why the underlying documents matter.
The public should be able to understand what the actual Miranda waiver shows, what the contemporaneous police reports show, what the suppression transcripts show, and how the competing evidence was evaluated.
The sentencing issue also remains striking.
In its 2026 opinion, the Court of Appeals recognized that New Jersey first-degree robbery can be committed in certain circumstances without the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, while North Carolina armed robbery requires the use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
The court nevertheless concluded that the two offenses were substantially similar for sentencing purposes.
Dwayne also previously raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involving multiple attorneys. The Court of Appeals rejected those claims after concluding that he had not demonstrated the prejudice required for relief. Those rulings are part of the record and should be accurately understood—not hidden or misstated.
His case also contains an unusual plea-negotiation history. The appellate record describes discussions in which law enforcement expressed interest in a Bentley Dwayne had driven to court, and forfeiture of that vehicle was discussed in connection with a reduced sentence. After it was learned that the Bentley was rented, an older Mercedes was discussed as a possible alternative. Dwayne reported what he believed could be improper conduct. The North Carolina SBI later investigated and concluded that there was no evidence of illegal activity. The Court of Appeals ultimately rejected Dwayne’s related ineffective-assistance claim because it found that he had not established the required prejudice.
We include that history not to accuse anyone of conduct that has not been proven, but because transparency requires presenting the full record—including facts that support Dwayne’s position and facts that courts have relied upon against him.
This petition is not asking the public to declare anyone corrupt.
It is not asking anyone to disregard a court ruling.
And it is not asking for special treatment.
It is asking for scrutiny.
When a person’s liberty is at stake, acknowledged legal errors should matter. Conflicting evidence should matter. The accuracy of sentencing should matter. The effectiveness of legal representation should matter. And when an appellate court sends a case back because errors occurred, the manner in which that mandate is carried out should matter.
We are calling for preservation and meaningful review of the complete record in State v. Dwayne G. Davis, including the original proceedings, suppression proceedings, sentencing and resentencing records, attorney-performance issues, police and Miranda documentation, and all remaining lawful appellate and post-conviction remedies.
We ask that Dwayne’s case be judged on the complete record—not assumptions, incomplete information, or unanswered questions.
A person’s freedom deserves accuracy.
A person’s freedom deserves constitutional fairness.
And when errors are acknowledged, a person’s freedom deserves meaningful review.
Please sign and share this petition to help bring greater scrutiny, transparency, and attention to the case of Dwayne G. Davis.
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on September 12, 2026