State v. Hines

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 25-43
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-43

Filed 15 October 2025

Wayne County, No. 09CRS051448-950

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

TRISTAN PHILLIP HINES, Defendant.

Appeal by Tristan Phillip Hines from judgment entered 7 October 2022 by

Judge William W. Bland in Wayne County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of

Appeals 12 August 2025.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Caden W. Hayes, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Wyatt Orsbon, for Defendant–Appellant.

MURRY, Judge.

Tristan P. Hines (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his

motion for appropriate relief (MAR). For the reasons below, this Court holds that the

trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s MAR.

I. Background

On 10 March 2009, Defendant was arrested for stealing 28 video games from STATE V. HINES

Opinion of the Court

Target Stores, valued at $1,599.72. The next day, Defendant was charged with felony

larceny, simple possession of marijuana, and resisting a public officer. On 30 June

2009, Defendant was charged with felony larceny by bill of information (information)

alleging that he “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did steal, take, and carry away

28 assorted video games, the personal property of Target Stores, such property having

a value of $1,599.72.” (Brackets omitted.) That same day, Defendant entered a guilty

plea to felony larceny in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the other two charges.

The trial court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea and sentenced him within the

presumptive range of 11–14 months, suspended for 36 months of supervised

probation following a 120-day active sentence. Defendant did not appeal the sentence

at the time.

Almost ten years later, Defendant filed a MAR on 12 June 2019, claiming that

the original trial court lacked jurisdiction because the information was “fatally

defective” for failing to allege that “Target Stores” was an entity capable of owning

personal property. The trial court heard Defendant’s MAR on 22 June 2021 and

denied it by order issued 7 October 2022. Defendant filed a petition for writ of

certiorari (PWC) to this Court on 15 February 2024, seeking review of the order. In

its discretion, this Court granted Defendant’s PWC on 8 April 2024.

II. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction to grant certiorari review of the trial court’s denial

of Defendant’s MAR under N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-32 and 15A-1415. See N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(c)

-2- STATE V. HINES

(appellate jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari); N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415 (b)(2) (allowing

MAR “more than 10 days after entry of judgment” on certain grounds).

III. Analysis

Defendant claims that the trial court erred by refusing to vacate his larceny

conviction. First, Defendant claims that due process bars the retroactive application

of State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183 (2024), to his case because it requires this Court

to judge the sufficiency of the charge according to the law in effect at the time of the

alleged offense. Second, Defendant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

adjudicate the charge of felony larceny because the charging information deprived

him of constitutionally adequate notice of the accusation against him. We review a

trial court’s denial of an MAR to determine whether its “findings of fact are supported

by evidence . . . [and] support the conclusions of law, and whether the conclusions of

law support the order entered by the trial court.” State v. Frogge, 359 N.C. 228, 240

(2005) (quotation omitted). For the following reasons, this Court holds that the trial

court did not err by denying Defendant’s MAR.

A. Retroactivity

First, Defendant argues that State v. Singleton does not retroactively apply to

the information, and that holding otherwise violates his due-process rights under the

Federal and State Constitutions. He claims for the first time on appeal that we may

assess “the sufficiency of the charge” in the information only “according to the law in

effect at the time of the alleged offense.”

-3- STATE V. HINES

We ordinarily do not address “constitutional question[s] . . . not raised and

passed upon in the trial court.” State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 (1982). But

Singleton’s retroactivity necessarily controls our analysis of the information itself.

Unlike most other claims, Defendant may question the trial court’s subject-matter

jurisdiction . . . at any point in the criminal proceedings. See State v. Corey, 373 N.C.

225, 232–33 (2019). If Singleton is retroactive, we must first “differentiat[e] between

[any] jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors” in the information and then apply

their respective constitutional and statutory standards of review. State v. Singleton,

386 N.C. 183, 207 (2024). If Singleton is solely prospective, however, then we must

review the entire information for whether it omitted “a[ny] essential element[ ] of the

offense,” State v. Rankin, 371 N.C. 885, 887 (2018), abrogated by Singleton, 386 N.C.

at 195–96, to a constitutionally prejudicial degree, see N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b)(2023).

Either way, our Constitution and Rules of Appellate Procedure preserve for our

review Defendant’s assertions regarding the information. See Singleton, 386 N.C. at

208 (first citing N.C. Const. art. IV, § 13, cl. 2; then citing N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1)).

We now address the retroactivity of Singleton.

Defendant incorrectly believes that retroactive recognition of Singleton would

violate the “limitations on ex post facto judicial decision[-]making . . . inherent in the

notion of due process,” Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 456 (2001), because that

decision “significantly changed the law on criminal pleadings without fair warning,”

(quotation modified). Because this Court “do[es] not ‘pronounce a new law’ ” by

-4- STATE V. HINES

recognizing Singleton’s retroactivity but instead “maintain[s] and expound[s] the old

one,” we disagree. Bryan A. Garner et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent 309 (2016)

(quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *69).

A retroactively applied decision does not violate the Federal and State

Constitutions because their respective Ex Post Facto Clauses “appl[y only] to

legislative and not judicial action.” State v. Rivens, 299 N.C. 385, 392 (1980); see U.S.

Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; N.C. Const. art. I, § 16. Parties before our courts “ha[ve] no

vested right in a decision of” the North Carolina Supreme Court, whose decisions are

“generally presumed to operate retroactively . . . [and] given solely prospective

application only when there is compelling reason to do so.” Rivens, 299 N.C. at 390–

92 (quotation omitted); see Mason v. A.E. Nelson Cotton Co., 148 N.C. 492, 510–11

(1908) (The general principle is that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction,

overruling a former decision, is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not

that the former decision is bad law, but that it never was the law.” (emphasis added)).

In Singleton, our Supreme Court held that a “mere pleading deficiency in an

indictment does not deprive [our] courts of jurisdiction.” Singleton, 386 N.C. at 125.

Analyzing the defendant’s originating indictment for second-degree forcible rape, the

Singleton Court distinguished a jurisdictional defect that “wholly fails to charge a

crime” from a “non-jurisdictional deficienc[y]” that nevertheless expresses the crime

charged “in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner.” Id. at 184–85 (quoting N.C.G.S.

§ 15-153). Ultimately, Singleton laid out the following analytical roadmap:

-5- STATE V. HINES

In determining whether an error was prejudicial, the prejudicial[-]error tests provided in section 15A-1443 . . . appl[y]. Subsection 15A-1443(a) is the appropriate test for indictment errors that fail to satisfy statutory strictures, and subsection 15A-1443(b) is the appropriate test for indictment errors that fail to satisfy the constitutional purposes of indictments. See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443 (2023). . . . [But] the longer a defendant waits to raise issues related to deficient criminal pleadings, the more difficult it would be to establish prejudice.

Id. at 211 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).

This holding acknowledges the General Assembly’s intent to preserve criminal

pleadings regardless of minor technical defects. Section 15-153 requires only that a

criminal pleading lay out “the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible,

and explicit manner” and expressly permits an “informality or refinement” if the trial

court can still “proceed to judgment.” N.C.G.S. § 15-153. Section 15-155 similarly

forbids an indictment’s “stay[ ] or revers[al]” for lacking “the averment of any matter

unnecessary to be proved.” Id. § 15-155.

This Court has implicitly applied Singleton retroactively on multiple occasions

by upholding trial courts’ jurisdiction despite technical deficiencies in the contested

criminal pleadings. See State v. Cornwell, No. COA23-36-2, slip op. at 10 (N.C. Ct.

App. Jun. 18, 2025) (holding “statutor[il]y defect[ive]” indictment non-jurisdictional

and non-prejudicial); State v. Horton, 294 N.C. App. 614, 619 (2024) (discussing

Singleton’s “major deviation from the hyper-technical pleading standards previously

required at common law”); State v. Simpson, 295 N.C. App. 425 (2024) (recognizing

“automatic[ ] preserv[ation]” of “[b]oth ‘jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional pleading

-6- STATE V. HINES

issues’ ” (quoting Singleton, 386 N.C. at 208)). We explicitly apply Singleton now.

Here, Defendant raises no “compelling reason” to bar the retroactive

application of Singleton to the information. Rivens, 299 N.C. at 390. The record

indicates that the information gave Defendant sufficient notice of the felony larceny

charge to prepare his defense. In State v. Harris, 281 N.C. 542 (1972), our Supreme

Court prospectively applied the rule from its decision in State v. Williams, 279 N.C.

663 (1971), which expressly overruled prior decisions by prohibiting a defendant’s

impeachment through cross-examination regarding indictments for any crime “other

than that for which he is then on trial.” Harris, 281 N.C. at 549, quoting Williams,

279 N.C. at 672. The Harris Court reasoned that retroactive application “could easily

disrupt the orderly administration of our criminal law” by allowing post-conviction

proceedings on prior guilty verdicts applying the pre-Williams rule. Id. at 551.

Citing Harris for “relevant . . . guidance” in State v. Honeycutt, 46 N.C. App.

588 (1980), this Court prospectively applied the Supreme Court’s decision in State v.

Haywood, 295 N.C. 709 (1978), which held admissible a third party’s extrajudicial

confession of committing the defendant’s charged crime (a “declaration against penal

interest”). Honeycutt, 46 N.C. App. at 590–91; See Haywood, 295 at 730. The

Honeycutt Court reasoned that retroactive application would “disrupt . . . more than

a century” of North Carolina law, and Haywood’s new evidentiary rule did not “rise

to the magnitude of a constitutional reform” that “likely would mandate

retroactivity.” Honeycutt, 46 N.C. App. at 591–92.

-7- STATE V. HINES

Our Supreme Court in State v. Vance, 328 N.C. 613 (1991), prospectively

applied its abrogation of the common-law “year and a day” rule because retroactive

application would “severely disadvantage” the defendant by allowing his murder

conviction on less evidence than required at the time of the victim’s death. Vance, 328

N.C. at 622–23. The Vance Court found persuasive the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding

that the Federal Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws “also forbid[s]

retroactive application of an unforeseeable judicial modification of criminal law, to

the disadvantage of the defendant.” Id. at 621 (emphasis added); see Marks v. United

States, 430 U.S. 188, 191–92 (1977).

Here, there is no significant justification for prospective application of

Singleton. Retroactive application of Singleton causes no “disruption” to longstanding

criminal law administration but aligns with this Court’s decisions upholding the

sufficiency of criminal pleadings despite technical deficiencies. Harris, 281 N.C. at

551. Nor would Defendant suffer “severe[ ] disadvantage” as a result. Vance, 328 N.C.

at 622. The record indicates that the information gave Defendant sufficient notice of

the felony larceny charge to prepare his defense, he signed the information, and he

did not appeal the resulting sentence until almost a decade later when he filed his

MAR. Because the information gave Defendant sufficient notice of the accusation

against him to prepare his defense, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over

his felony larceny conviction. Thus, Singleton retroactively applies to past criminal

indictments absent “a case of unusual hardship.” Mason, 148 N.C. at 511 (emphasis

-8- STATE V. HINES

added).

B. Notice

Second, Defendant claims that the trial court lacked the subject-matter

jurisdiction to adjudicate his larceny prosecution because the information failed to

allege that “Target Stores,” the alleged victim, was an entity capable of owning

personal property. As noted above, a defendant may statutorily or constitutionally

challenge the sufficiency of a criminal pleading for the first time on appeal. See

Horton, 294 N.C. App. at 616; N.C.G.S. § 15A-644(b)(2025) (same requirements for

an information and an indictment). For the criminal pleading to be facially defective,

the defendant must show either constitutional or statutory prejudice. See State v.

Stewart, 386 N.C. 237, 240 (2024) (citing Singleton, 386 N.C. at 210). This Court

reviews the sufficiency of a criminal pleading de novo, id., by applying different

standards of prejudice depending on the categorical error, see Singleton, 386 N.C. at

211. A constitutional error prejudices a defendant if “the State [cannot] demonstrate,

beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b). By

contrast, a statutory error prejudices a defendant only if he can show “a reasonable

possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result

would have been reached at [his] trial.” Id. at § 15A-1443(a).

The Federal and State Constitutions preserve a defendant’s right to receive

notice of the accusation against him “sufficient to prepare a defense and to protect

against double jeopardy.” In re J.U., 384 N.C. 618, 623 (2023). Thus, a criminal

-9- STATE V. HINES

pleading must “clearly” “identify . . . the crime being charged” to a degree that puts

the defendant “on reasonable notice to defend against it and prepare for trial.”

Stewart, 386 N.C. at 241 (quotation omitted). The criminal pleading must contain a

“plain and concise factual statement in each count which . . . asserts facts supporting

every element of a criminal offense and the defendant’s commission thereof.” N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-924(a)(5). The language must “clearly set forth . . . the act or omission . . . so

that a person of common understanding may know what is intended.” State v. Coker,

312 N.C. 432, 435 (1984) (citing 41 Am. Jur. 2d Indictments and Information § 68

(1968)). For example, a criminal pleading may sufficiently charge a statutory offense

by using “the words of the statute, either literally or substantially, or in equivalent

words.” Horton, 294 N.C. App. at 616–17 (quotation omitted).

But “a mere pleading deficiency” in a criminal pleading “does not deprive the

courts of jurisdiction.” Id. A criminal pleading “is not required to establish the

essential elements of the crime charged” but only needs to “assert facts supporting

each element of the offense.” Horton, 294 N.C. App. at 618 (emphases added).

Here, the information charged Defendant with felony larceny under N.C.G.S.

§ 14-72. See N.C.G.S. § 14-72(a). Common-law larceny is the (1) “taking and carrying

away [of] . . . the personal property of another,” (2) “without his consent,” and (3) “with

the intent to deprive him of its possession permanently.” State v. Myrick, 306 N.C.

110, 116 (1982) (quotation omitted). The charging language alleges that Defendant

“unlawfully, willfully[,] and feloniously did steal[,] take[,] and carry away 28 assorted

- 10 - STATE V. HINES

video games, the personal property of Target Stores, such property having a value of

$1,599.72.” The charging language of “tak[ing] and carry[ing] away . . . the personal

property of Target Stores” matches the language of “taking and carrying away . . . the

personal property of another,” Id. (quotation omitted). The adverbs, “unlawfully”,

“willfully”, and “feloniously” emphasize the criminal nature of the taking. The

information also identifies the alleged victim as “Target Stores” and the value of the

video games as $1,599.72, thus exceeding the $1,000 value statutorily required for

felony larceny. See N.C.G.S. § 14-72. Even without an explicit statement that “Target

Stores” was an entity capable of owning personal property, “a person of common

understanding” could understand that the business model of a store is to own

personal property that it offers for sale to the public. Coker, 312 N.C. at 432. Thus,

this Court holds that the information was facially sufficient under Singleton.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the trial court did not

err by denying Defendant’s MAR.

NO ERROR.

Judge ZACHARY concurs.

Judge HAMPSON concurs in the result only.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 11 -