In re Coley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re Coley

432 S.E.2d 867, 111 N.C. App. 451, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 801

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 3, 1993

DocketNo. 9210SC745

StatusPublished

This text of 432 S.E.2d 867 (In re Coley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Coley, 432 S.E.2d 867, 111 N.C. App. 451, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 801 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Respondent contends that the provisions of G.S. § 122C as amended by Senate Bill 43 in April 1991 violate the Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Respondent also contends that Senate Bill 43 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution and North Carolina Constitution. The questions presented by respondent on appeal are identical to the issues raised in In re Hayes, 111 N.C. App. 384, 432 S.E.2d 862 (1993), which was filed simultaneously with the case at bar. For the reasons stated in Hayes, we hold that respondent’s assignments of error are without merit.

Affirmed.

Judges ORR and MARTIN concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Respondent contends that the provisions of G.S. § 122C as amended by Senate Bill 43 in April 1991 violate the Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Respondent also contends that Senate Bill 43 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution and North Carolina Constitution. The questions presented by respondent on appeal are identical to the issues raised in In re Hayes, 111 N.C. App. 384, 432 S.E.2d 862 (1993), which was filed simultaneously with the case at bar. For the reasons stated in Hayes, we hold that respondent’s assignments of error are without merit.

Affirmed.

Judges ORR and MARTIN concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 S.E.2d 867, 111 N.C. App. 451, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-coley-ncctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack