The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld the convictions of Gail Alston Coachman for embezzlement and attempted obtaining property by false pretenses. The court's decision, filed on November 4, 2026, comes after Coachman appealed her convictions from a Guilford County Superior Court ruling. This case is significant as it addresses the complexities of jury instructions and the effectiveness of legal counsel in criminal proceedings.

Coachman was found guilty of two counts of embezzlement and two counts of attempted obtaining property by false pretenses. The court's ruling has implications for how such cases are prosecuted and how defendants can challenge their convictions on appeal.

Background

The case began when a grand jury indicted Coachman in March 2022 for two counts of embezzlement. In August 2025, a superseding indictment added two counts of attempted obtaining property by false pretenses. The trial took place in October 2025, where the evidence presented indicated that Coachman had been employed as a bookkeeper at C&C Development Solutions, a property management company owned by Kenneth Roundtree.

From 2016 to October 2019, Coachman was responsible for managing financial transactions for several LLCs associated with C&C. Roundtree allowed her to write checks on behalf of the company, including checks made out to herself. After her termination, Roundtree discovered that Coachman had written unauthorized checks totaling over $67,000 from the company accounts. The prosecution presented over 100 checks as evidence of fraudulent activity, including evidence that Coachman accessed the company's accounting software without permission to alter records.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Jeff Carpenter, ruled that there was no error in the trial court's jury instructions and that Coachman did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Coachman argued that the jury was not properly instructed that it could not convict her of both attempted obtaining property by false pretenses and embezzlement. However, the court found that the trial court had arrested judgment on the false pretenses convictions, effectively remedying any potential instructional error.

“The trial court did not plainly err in its jury instructions,” the court stated in its opinion. “Defendant cannot show prejudice, thus, she did not receive IAC.”

The court clarified that embezzlement involves lawfully possessing property that is then fraudulently converted for personal use, while obtaining property by false pretenses involves unlawfully acquiring property. Since the trial court had taken appropriate steps to prevent multiple punishments by arresting judgment on one of the counts, the court concluded that Coachman was not prejudiced by the jury instructions.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the importance of clear jury instructions in criminal cases, particularly in instances where multiple charges may arise from the same conduct. It also highlights the challenges defendants face when claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court's decision suggests that unless a defendant can demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different without their counsel's alleged errors, such claims may not succeed on appeal.

Going forward, this case may serve as a reference point for future cases involving similar charges of embezzlement and false pretenses, especially regarding how courts handle jury instructions and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Coachman plans to appeal the ruling further. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.