Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this drug trafficking case, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion for appropriate relief (MAR) which asserted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Drug were discovered after a vehicle stop. The defendant lost his motion to suppress and after being convicted appealed. On appeal appellate counsel did not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact in connection with the suppression motion, and thus they were binding on appeal. After the Court of Appeals affirmed, the defendant filed a MAR alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically he asserted that there was no evidence to support the finding of fact that the officer was aware of an inspection violation at the time of the stop. The defendant asserted that if appellate counsel had properly challenged this finding of fact, the court would have reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the convictions. The trial court denied the defendant’s MAR, concluding that to rule favorably would require the court to reverse the order denying the motion to suppress and thus violate the rule that one Superior Court Judge cannot overrule another. The defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Court of Appeals granted.
The court began by finding that the rule that one Superior Court Judge cannot overrule another “is generally inapplicable where a judge is tasked with deciding the merits of a defendant’s motion for appropriate relief.” The court noted that such action is authorized by the MAR statute. Thus, the trial court acted under a misapprehension of the law when it denied the defendant’s MAR on grounds that it would impermissibly require the MAR court to overrule another Superior Court Judge.
The court went on to find that the defendant was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the trial court’s findings of fact regarding the inspection violation was not a reasonable strategic decision but rather an oversight. In fact, appellate counsel’s affidavit stated that counsel had “missed” the issue. Thus, the defendant satisfied the first prong of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim: deficient performance. The court went on to conclude that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. Here, had appellate counsel challenged the trial court’s findings of fact, there is a reasonable probability that the Court of Appeals would have concluded that the trial court’s finding that the stop was initiated because of an inspection violation was not supported by competent evidence and thus could not support the trial court’s conclusion as to the stop’s validity. Specifically, the DMV printout at issue contained no information concerning the vehicle’s inspection status and the officers did not claim any other knowledge of the vehicle’s inspection violation. In light of the actual DMV information presented, the officers could not have known that the vehicle’s inspection was expired at the time of the stop. Given the reasonable probability that the inspection status would not have been found to support the validity of the stop, this court would have proceeded to examine the defendant’s arguments pertaining to the two other grounds upon which the trial court based its denial of his motion to suppress, and it likely would have found for the defendant on both.
In this Cumberland County case, both the State and defendant filed petitions for writ of certiorari after the trial court issued an order to enforce a plea agreement between the parties. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the order, but reversed the order’s requirement for specific performance because defendant did not show detrimental reliance on the agreement prior to the State’s withdrawal, remanding for further proceedings.
In March of 2016, defendant was charged with child abuse and first-degree murder in connection with the death of her daughter. Defendant negotiated a plea agreement based upon the argument that her romantic partner caused the injuries to the child, ultimately reaching an agreement to plead guilty to accessory after the fact to first-degree murder. The State requested defendant submit to a polygraph and not to move for bond reduction or seek a probable cause hearing during its investigation, which defendant did. Defendant also submitted to a second interview with investigators. After all this, the State provided a plea agreement for accessory after the fact to first-degree murder, which defendant signed in January 2018, with a plea hearing set for March 2018. However, before the plea hearing, the district attorney’s office cancelled the hearing, and then withdrew as counsel for the State due to a conflict. The newly appointed special prosecutor then cancelled the plea agreement in April 2018 and made a new offer which defendant rejected. Defendant filed a motion to enforce the prior plea agreement, which the trial court denied in November 2018. Defendant proceeded to trial on the charges, and filed a second motion seeking specific performance of the plea agreement. In November 2021, a second judge acting as the trial court granted this second motion to enforce the agreement, leading to the present appeal prior to any judgment in defendant’s case.
The Court of Appeals first took pains to explain the complicated procedural history of the case, noting it arose from an interlocutory order reviewed under N.C. Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a)(1). The court then moved to the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction, explaining that the initial ruling of November 2018 was not properly entered in the record. The court turned to State v. Oates, 366 N.C. 264 (2012), for the proposition that in criminal cases a judgment is entered “when the clerk of court records or files the judge’s decision.” Slip Op. at 12. Although the trial court announced a November 2018 ruling in open court, the record did not show any file stamp or entry by the clerk recording the order, leading the court to conclude it was never entered. This meant that the second judge acting as trial court had jurisdiction to enter an order in November 2021.
Having established jurisdiction, the court moved to the enforceability of the plea, concluding that the trial court mistakenly determined defendant’s due process rights were violated. The court reviewed Supreme Court precedent on the issue including State v. Collins, 300 N.C. 142 (1980), and articulated the applicable rule:
The State may be bound to an offer which has not resulted in the actual entry and acceptance of the defendant’s guilty plea only when the defendant is necessarily prejudiced by changing her position in detrimental reliance upon that agreement prior to judicial sanction or the State’s withdrawal.
Slip Op. at 20. Here, the court did not find the necessary detrimental reliance, explaining the terms of the plea agreement did not require defendant to submit to the interview or forego the bond reduction or probable cause hearings, and those events took place prior to the plea agreement offer. The trial court’s findings did not show detrimental reliance by defendant after the presentation of the plea agreement in January 2018, leading the court to conclude it was error to order specific performance of the agreement.
(1) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that on a second trial after a mistrial the second trial judge was bound by the first trial judge’s suppression ruling under the doctrine of law of the case. The court concluded that doctrine only applies to an appellate ruling. However, the court noted that another version of the doctrine provides that when a party fails to appeal from the tribunal’s decision that is not interlocutory, the decision below becomes law of the case and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings in the same case. However, the court held that this version of the doctrine did not apply here because the suppression ruling was entered during the first trial and thus the State had no right to appeal it. Moreover, when a defendant is retried after a mistrial, prior evidentiary rulings are not binding. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the second judge’s ruling was improper because one superior court judge cannot overrule another, noting that once a mistrial was declared, the first trial court’s ruling no longer had any legal effect. (3) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that collateral estoppel barred the State from relitigating the suppression issue, noting that doctrine applies only to an issue of ultimate fact determined by a final judgment.
The trial court did not err when during a retrial in a DWI case it instructed the jury that it could consider the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test as evidence of her guilt even though during the first trial a different trial judge had ruled that the instruction was not supported by the evidence. Citing State v. Harris, 198 N.C. App. 371 (2009), the court held that neither collateral estoppel nor the rule prohibiting one superior court judge from overruling another applies to legal rulings in a retrial following a mistrial. It concluded that on retrial de novo, the second judge was not bound by rulings made during the first trial. Moreover, it concluded, collateral estoppel applies only to an issue of ultimate fact determined by a final judgment. Here, the first judge’s ruling involved a question of law, not fact, and there was no final judgment because of the mistrial.
When a mistrial was declared, the judge retrying the case was not bound by rulings made by the judge who presided over the prior trial. Here, the rulings pertained to the admissibility of 404(b) evidence and complete recordation of the trial.