Former North Carolina sheriff has convictions for falsifying training records overturned

A North Carolina appeals court recently overturned the fraud and obstruction convictions of former Granville County sheriff Brindell Wilkins, ruling that allegations regarding falsifying firearms training requirements did not meet the necessary elements for those crimes. Wilkins was initially convicted on six counts of obstruction of justice and six counts of obtaining property by false pretenses in December 2022, but the Court of Appeals vacated these convictions. The court’s decision followed a similar ruling in which a subordinate to Wilkins had his obstruction convictions overturned.
Wilkins, who served as sheriff for a decade until 2019, had been sentenced to six to 17 months in prison. He had also pleaded guilty to other charges in the past, unrelated to the allegations in question. The 2022 convictions against Wilkins revolved around accusations that he falsified records to indicate completion of required annual firearms training, despite not actually fulfilling the training requirements. However, the court emphasized that a sheriff is not mandated to maintain certification or complete such training.
Evidence revealed that Wilkins had reported completing training he had not done by falsifying records over several years. Another individual, Chad Coffey, a former Granville deputy, had fabricated scores and records at the direction of Wilkins and the sheriff’s chief deputy. Wilkins admitted during trial that he had not undergone the required training and had submitted false records for personal reasons, to receive credit for it.
Writing the unanimous opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Toby Hampson concurred with Wilkins that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the presence of fraud. Referring to the charge of obtaining property by false pretenses, Hampson noted that nothing had been gained as Wilkins already held certification as a law enforcement officer from his time as a deputy.
Hampson also highlighted the lack of intent to obstruct justice in both Wilkins’ and Coffey’s cases. The court concluded that the obstruction of justice charges required intent to hinder an official proceeding, which was not proven in the indictments against Wilkins and Coffey.
The decision by the Court of Appeals may be subject to further review by the state Supreme Court. Despite both state prosecutors and Coffey’s attorneys requesting the Supreme Court to consider the case, earlier this year, the justices declined to hear Coffey’s appeal.
In a separate case in October 2023, Wilkins pleaded guilty to various charges involving allegations of improper evidence handling and soliciting someone to harm another former deputy.