State v. Boone

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Boone

297 S.E.2d 920, 59 N.C. App. 730, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3188

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 7, 1982

DocketNo. 824SC276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 S.E.2d 920 (State v. Boone) 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

State v. Boone, 297 S.E.2d 920, 59 N.C. App. 730, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3188 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

By his first assignment of error, defendant contends that Judge Peel’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress was a nullity. We agree. The order was signed after the session at which the motion was heard was closed, and it was signed outside of the district and outside of the county in which defendant was being tried. Under these circumstances, Judge Peel was without authority to enter the disputed order. See State v. Saults, 299 N.C. 319, 261 S.E. 2d 839 (1980); State v. Ray, 97 N.C. 510, 1 S.E. 876 (1887); 8 N.C. Index 3d, Judgments, § 2.1.

Judge Peel’s order being a nullity, defendant was entitled to have his motion to suppress heard before trial, G.S. 15A-977, and it was error for Judge Strickland to decline to hear defendant’s motion when it was renewed before him.

Since there must be a new trial, we deem it inappropriate to address defendant’s other assignments of error.

New trial.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

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

WELLS, Judge.

By his first assignment of error, defendant contends that Judge Peel’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress was a nullity. We agree. The order was signed after the session at which the motion was heard was closed, and it was signed outside of the district and outside of the county in which defendant was being tried. Under these circumstances, Judge Peel was without authority to enter the disputed order. See State v. Saults, 299 N.C. 319, 261 S.E. 2d 839 (1980); State v. Ray, 97 N.C. 510, 1 S.E. 876 (1887); 8 N.C. Index 3d, Judgments, § 2.1.

Judge Peel’s order being a nullity, defendant was entitled to have his motion to suppress heard before trial, G.S. 15A-977, and it was error for Judge Strickland to decline to hear defendant’s motion when it was renewed before him.

Since there must be a new trial, we deem it inappropriate to address defendant’s other assignments of error.

New trial.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 S.E.2d 920, 59 N.C. App. 730, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boone-ncctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack