State v. Brice, No. COA15–904.
| Docket Nº | No. COA15–904. |
| Citation | 786 S.E.2d 812, 247 N.C.App. 766 |
| Case Date | June 07, 2016 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
247 N.C.App. 766
786 S.E.2d 812
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Sandra Meshell BRICE, Defendant.
No. COA15–904.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
June 7, 2016.
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.
ELMORE, Judge.
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.
I. Background
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:
that on or about [21 April 2013] and in [Catawba County] the defendant named unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did steal, take, and carry away FIVE PACKS OF STEAKS, the personal property of FOOD LION, LLC, such property having a value of SEVENTY DOLLARS ($70.00), and the defendant has had the following four prior larceny convictions in which he was represented by counsel or waived counsel:
On or about MAY 8, 1996 the defendant committed the misdemeanor of LARCENY in violation of the law of the State of North Carolina, G.S. 14–72, and on or about SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor of LARCENY in the District Court of Lincoln County, North Carolina; and that
On or about FEBRUARY 19, 1997 the defendant committed the misdemeanor of LARCENY in violation of the law of the State of North Carolina, GS. 14–72, and on or about JULY 29, 1997 the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor of LARCENY in the District Court of Catawba County, North Carolina; and that
On or about JUNE 13, 2003 the defendant committed the misdemeanor of LARCENY in violation of the law of the State of North Carolina, G.S. 14–72, and on or about OCTOBER 17, 2003 the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor of LARCENY in the District Court of Catawba County, North Carolina; and that
On or about JULY 7, 2007 the defendant committed the misdemeanor of LARCENY in violation of the law of the State of North Carolina, G.S. 14–72, and on or about SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor of LARCENY in the District Court of Catawba County, North Carolina.
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.
II. Discussion
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brice, No. 244PA16
...its face, the indictment here failed to comply with" that statutory provision. 370 N.C. 246 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. 240, 455 S.E......
-
State v. Arnold, No. COA16-667
...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 def......
-
State v. Arnold, No. 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, No. COA15–547.
...94 N.C.App. 20, 29, 33–34, 380 S.E.2d 360, 365–66, 368 (noting that the trial court excluded evidence that the police had found marijuana 786 S.E.2d 812 in a car parked within the curtilage of the defendant's house, which was registered to a woman living at the house with the defendant, "be......
-
State v. Brice, No. 244PA16
...its face, the indictment here failed to comply with" that statutory provision. 370 N.C. 246 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. 240, 455 S.E......
-
State v. Arnold, No. COA16-667
...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 def......
-
State v. Arnold, No. 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, No. COA15–547.
...94 N.C.App. 20, 29, 33–34, 380 S.E.2d 360, 365–66, 368 (noting that the trial court excluded evidence that the police had found marijuana 786 S.E.2d 812 in a car parked within the curtilage of the defendant's house, which was registered to a woman living at the house with the defendant, "be......