State v. Speight

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Speight

637 S.E.2d 539, 361 N.C. 106, 2006 N.C. LEXIS 1290

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 15, 2006·No. No. 491PA04-2·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration of this case in light of Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S.-, 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006), we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 166 N.C. App. 106, 177-78, 602 S.E.2d 4, 12 (2004), and remand to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision in State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d - (2006) (No. 490PA04-2). However, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion finding no prejudicial error in defendant’s convictions as specified in that opinion remains undisturbed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration of this case in light of Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S.-, 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006), we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 166 N.C. App. 106, 177-78, 602 S.E.2d 4, 12 (2004), and remand to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision in State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d - (2006) (No. 490PA04-2). However, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion finding no prejudicial error in defendant’s convictions as specified in that opinion remains undisturbed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

State v. Speight, 637 S.E.2d 539, 361 N.C. 106, 2006 N.C. LEXIS 1290 (N.C. 2006).

Pincite

637 S.E.2d 539 (State v. Speight) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related