State v. Watts

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: May 20, 2014
• Docket: 13-1145
• Status: Unpublished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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

NO. COA13-1145 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 20 May 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. New Hanover County No. 11 CRS 054439 JACKIE EDWARD WATTS

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 30 April 2013 by

Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Superior Court, New Hanover County.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 April 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Sharon Patrick-Wilson, for the State.

Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kathleen M. Joyce, for Defendant-Appellant.

McGEE, Judge.

Jackie Edward Watts (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment

entered upon his Alford plea of guilty to one count of

trafficking by sale of opiates. For the reasons stated herein,

we dismiss Defendant’s appeal.

Defendant was arrested and charged with several drug

trafficking offenses on 13 May 2011. Defendant was indicted on -2- 18 July 2011 on four counts of trafficking in opiates, two

counts of possession with intent to sell and deliver a

controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park, and

attempted trafficking in opiates by possession. Defendant was

indicted for having attained the status of an habitual felon on

3 December 2012.

Defendant filed a pro se pre-trial motion on 31 January

2012 to dismiss based on violation of his right to a speedy

trial. Defendant filed a pro se “writ of habeas corpus” on 8

June 2012, arguing that he was being illegally detained in jail.

Defendant, through counsel, filed a motion on 28 January 2013,

seeking relief due to the trial court’s failure to hold a

probable cause hearing. Defendant, through counsel, filed

another motion on 1 February 2013 to dismiss based on violation

of Defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

Prior to trial, on 29 April 2013, the trial court denied

Defendant’s motions. After the denial of his motions, Defendant

entered an Alford plea and reserved the right to appeal the

denial of his motions to dismiss. Defendant was sentenced to a

term of seventy to eighty-four months in prison. Defendant

appeals. -3- Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been unable to

identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful

argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct

its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error.

Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he

has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C.

99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to

file written arguments with this Court and by providing

Defendant with the documents necessary for him to do so.

Defendant has filed a pro se brief raising arguments

concerning the denial of his motions to dismiss. However,

Defendant’s arguments concerning his motions to dismiss for

violation of his right to speedy trial and for the trial court’s

failure to hold a probable cause hearing are not issues from

which Defendant has an appeal of right as enumerated by N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444 (2013); see also State v. Rinehart, 195

N.C. App. 774, 776, 673 S.E.2d 769, 771 (2009) (dismissing a

defendant’s appeal of a plea agreement that improperly preserved

defendant’s right to appeal the denial of his pretrial motions

to dismiss on double jeopardy and speedy trial grounds).

Therefore, Defendant does not have a right of appeal. -4- Although Defendant has also filed a petition for writ of

certiorari, this Court is without authority to issue a writ of

certiorari to review these issues. Rinehart, 195 N.C. App. at

777, 673 S.E.2d at 771 (citations omitted) (“Because defendant

has not failed to take timely action, is not appealing from an

interlocutory order, and is not seeking review pursuant to N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 15A-1422(c)(3), we are without authority to issue a

writ of certiorari.”). Accordingly, we dismiss Defendant’s

appeal.

Dismissed.

Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).