State v. Joe

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Joe

723 S.E.2d 339, 365 N.C. 538, 2012 N.C. LEXIS 268

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 13, 2012

Docket333PA11

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 723 S.E.2d 339 (State v. Joe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Joe, 723 S.E.2d 339, 365 N.C. 538, 2012 N.C. LEXIS 268 (N.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State of North Carolina seeks review of the unanimous Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of all charges against defendant. Defendant was charged with resisting a public officer, felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and attaining habitual felon status. Defendant filed both a motion to dismiss the resisting charge and a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the search incident to arrest. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the motions, the trial court granted both of defendant’s motions, thus dismissing the charge of resisting a public officer and suppressing all evidence seized. Immediately thereafter, the State announced to the trial court that it “would be unable to proceed with the case in chief’ on the remaining charges. As a result, the other charges were dismissed. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, reasoning that the prosecutor’s statements to the trial court amounted to a dismissal in open court, under N.C.G.S. § 15A-931. State v. Joe, _ N.C. App. _, _, 711 S.E.2d 842, 848 (2011).

A trial court may grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss under N.C.G.S §§ 15A-954 or 15A-1227, or the State may enter “an oral dismissal in open court” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-931. Although we do not agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the prosecutor’s statements amounted to a dismissal in open court, we also conclude that the trial court had no authority to enter an order dismissing the case on its own motion.

Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals to the extent it may be read as affirming the trial court’s dismissal of charges on its own motion. Therefore, we remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the State’s argument pertaining to the motion to suppress. As to all other issues, we hold that discretionary review was improvidently allowed.

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State of North Carolina seeks review of the unanimous Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of all charges against defendant. Defendant was charged with resisting a public officer, felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and attaining habitual felon status. Defendant filed both a motion to dismiss the resisting charge and a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the search incident to arrest. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the motions, the trial court granted both of defendant’s motions, thus dismissing the charge of resisting a public officer and suppressing all evidence seized. Immediately thereafter, the State announced to the trial court that it “would be unable to proceed with the case in chief’ on the remaining charges. As a result, the other charges were dismissed. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, reasoning that the prosecutor’s statements to the trial court amounted to a dismissal in open court, under N.C.G.S. § 15A-931. State v. Joe, _ N.C. App. _, _, 711 S.E.2d 842, 848 (2011).

A trial court may grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss under N.C.G.S §§ 15A-954 or 15A-1227, or the State may enter “an oral dismissal in open court” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-931. Although we do not agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the prosecutor’s statements amounted to a dismissal in open court, we also conclude that the trial court had no authority to enter an order dismissing the case on its own motion.

Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals to the extent it may be read as affirming the trial court’s dismissal of charges on its own motion. Therefore, we remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the State’s argument pertaining to the motion to suppress. As to all other issues, we hold that discretionary review was improvidently allowed.

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 S.E.2d 339, 365 N.C. 538, 2012 N.C. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-joe-nc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack