State v. Brice, COA15–904.
Decision Date | 07 June 2016 |
Docket Number | No. COA15–904.,COA15–904. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Sandra Meshell BRICE, Defendant. |
Appellate Defender, Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender, Daniel L. Spiegel, for defendant.
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Nancy Dunn Hardison, for the State.
Defendant argues on appeal that the indictment against her was fatally defective because it failed to comply with the requirements set forth in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–928. Defendant's petition for certiorari is allowed by this Court so that we may review the judgment entered. In accordance with State v. Williams, 153 N.C.App. 192, 568 S.E.2d 890 (2002), we hold that the indictment was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. We vacate defendant's conviction for habitual misdemeanor larceny and remand for entry of judgment and sentence for misdemeanor larceny.
On 22 July 2013, a Catawba County Grand Jury indicted Sandra Meshell Brice (defendant) on one count of "habitual misdemeanor larceny" for stealing five packs of steaks valued at $70.00. The indictment alleged:
At the beginning of trial, defendant stipulated to four prior misdemeanor larceny convictions outside the presence of the jury. The trial court informed counsel that it intended to proceed as if the trial was for misdemeanor larceny. The court also informed the jury that defendant had been charged "with the offense larceny."
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found defendant guilty of larceny. The court entered judgment against defendant for habitual misdemeanor larceny, and sentenced defendant to ten to twenty-one months of imprisonment, suspended for twenty-four months of supervised probation, and a seventy-five-day active term as a condition of special probation. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment for habitual misdemeanor larceny because the indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to comply with the mandates of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–928. Although defendant failed to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment in the trial court, "where an indictment is alleged to be invalid on its face, thereby depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction, a challenge to that indictment may be made at any time, even if it was not contested in the trial court." State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 503, 528 S.E.2d 326, 341 (citations omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1018, 121 S.Ct. 581, 148 L.Ed.2d 498 (2000), reh'g denied, 531 U.S. 1120, 121 S.Ct. 872, 148 L.Ed.2d 784 (2001). Therefore, we address defendant's argument on the merits.
A valid indictment is required to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. State v. Covington, 258 N.C. 501, 503, 128 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1963) ; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 415, 38 S.E.2d 166, 167 (1946). " ‘When the record shows a lack of jurisdiction in the lower court, the appropriate action on the part of the appellate court is to arrest judgment or vacate any order entered without authority.’ " State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169, 175, 432 S.E.2d 832, 836 (1993) (quoting State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 176, 273 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1981) ). Challenges to the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo. State v. Pendergraft, 238 N.C.App. 516, ––––, 767 S.E.2d 674, 679 (2014) (citing State v. Marshall, 188 N.C.App. 744, 748, 656 S.E.2d 709, 712 (2008) ).
In trials in superior court where a defendant's prior convictions are alleged as part of a charged offense, the pleading must comply with the provisions of section 15A–928. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–924(c) (2015). Section 15A–928 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–928(a), (b) & (d) (2015) (emphasis added).
Turning to the offenses at issue, larceny is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor where the value of the property stolen is not more than $1,000.00. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–72(a) (2015). If, however, at the time of the offense the defendant had four prior larceny convictions, then the offense is punishable as a Class H felony. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–72(a) & (b)(6) (2015). In such a case, the defendant's prior convictions are treated as elements to elevate the principal offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. Therefore, an indictment for habitual misdemeanor larceny is subject to the provisions of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–928.
On its face, the indictment here failed to comply with N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–928. The State used the instrument to charge defendant with habitual misdemeanor larceny and to list defendant's prior convictions. Although section 15A–928(b) allows the State to incorporate "the special indictment or information" into the principal indictment, defendant's prior convictions were not alleged in a separate count. Rather, the sole indictment issued in this case lists a single count of "habitual misdemeanor larceny," alleging defendant's prior convictions thereafter.
Nevertheless, the State cites State v. Jernigan, 118 N.C.App. 240, 455 S.E.2d 163 (1995...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brice
...§ 15A-928" and that, "[o]n its face, the indictment here failed to comply with" that statutory provision. State v. Brice, ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 786 S.E.2d 812, 815 (2016). The Court of Appeals rejected the State's argument in reliance upon the decision in State v. Jernigan, 118 N.C. App......
-
State v. Arnold, COA16-667
...499, 577 S.E.2d 319, 324 (2003) ). "Challenges to the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo ." State v. Brice , ––– N.C. App ––––, ––––, 786 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2016) (citing State v. Pendergraft , 238 N.C. App. 516, 521, 767 S.E.2d 674, 679 (2014) ). "The purpose of an indictment ......
-
State v. Arnold, COA16-667
...S.E.2d 319, 324 (2003)). "Challenges to the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo." State v. Brice, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 786 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2016) (citing State v. Pendergraft, 238 N.C. App. 516, 521, 767 S.E.2d 674, 679 (2014)). "The purpose of an indictment is to give a de......
- State v. Dulin