State v. Pizano-Trejo

748 S.E.2d 144, 367 N.C. 111, 2013 WL 5526291, 2013 N.C. LEXIS 993
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 4, 2013·No. 203PA12·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Justice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See, e.g., Goldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

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

State v. Pizano-Trejo, 748 S.E.2d 144, 367 N.C. 111, 2013 WL 5526291, 2013 N.C. LEXIS 993 (N.C. 2013).

748 S.E.2d 144 (State v. Pizano-Trejo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldston v. State
700 S.E.2d 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2010)