State v. Diaz-Tomas
| Decision Date | 04 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 54A19-3 |
| Citation | 2022 NCSC 115 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGELIO ALBINO DIAZ-TOMAS |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Heard in the Supreme Court on 6 January 2022.
Appeal pursuant to N.C. G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 271 N.C.App. 97 (2020), affirming an order denying defendant's petition for writ of certiorari entered on 24 July 2019 by Judge Paul C. Ridgeway in Superior Court, Wake County. On 15 December 2020, the Supreme Court allowed defendant's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.
Anton M. Lebedev for defendant-appellant.
¶ 1 Defendant appeals from a divided opinion of the Court of Appeals, 271 N.C.App. 97 (2020), in which the Court of Appeals affirmed an order of the Superior Court, Wake County denying defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari requested that the superior court review an order of the District Court, Wake County, in which that court denied defendant's Motion to Reinstate Charges. Defendant's Motion to Reinstate Charges asked that the District Court reinstate, and place on the trial court's calendar, several criminal charges with which defendant had been charged which had been "dismissed with leave" by the district attorney's office pursuant to N.C. G.S. § 15A-932(a)(2) due to defendant's failure to appear before the trial court as ordered The Court of Appeals determined that only the Superior Court's order denying defendant's certiorari petition, and not the District Court's order denying defendant's Motion to Reinstate Charges, was properly before the appellate court due to the limited nature of the Court of Appeals' discretionary allowance of defendant's certiorari petition before the lower appellate court State v. Diaz-Tomas, 271 N.C.App 97, 102 (2020) A dissenting opinion was filed in the matter in which the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals considered the Superior Court to have erred in denying defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to review the order of the District Court Id. at 103 (Zachary, J concurring in part and dissenting in part). Defendant timely filed notice of appeal to this Court based upon the dissenting opinion. Therefore, an issue presented for our determination here is whether the Superior Court properly denied defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. This Court additionally allowed defendant's conditional petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as defendant's conditional petition for writ of certiorari to review the order denying his aforementioned Motion to Reinstate Charges. In sum, this Court is positioned to contemplate and resolve defendant's contentions regarding his ability to compel the reinstatement of his dismissed criminal charges and to compel the placement of these matters on a trial court's criminal case calendar for disposition. We hold that a criminal defendant does not possess the right to compel the district attorney, who has the authority to place the defendant's unresolved criminal charges in a dismissed-with-leave status, to reinstate the dismissed charges and to place the charges on a trial court's criminal case calendar for resolution. We also hold that a trial court lacks the authority to order that criminal charges which have been dismissed with leave by the duly empowered district attorney be reinstated and placed on a trial court's criminal case calendar against the will of the district attorney. This Court therefore affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirms the Superior Court's denial of defendant's petition for writ of certiorari.
¶ 2 Defendant also filed a petition for discretionary review which this Court allowed in part and denied in part by way of a special order entered on 15 December 2020, in which we opted to consider additional issues presented by defendant as to whether this Court and the Court of Appeals erred in declining to issue writs of mandamus to the District Attorney of Wake County and the District Court, Wake County, in order to effect defendant's desired outcome which he originally sought in the trial court and which he pursued through his initial Motion to Reinstate Charges. We take this opportunity to reaffirm the clear and well-settled principle of law which establishes that the extraordinary and discretionary writ of mandamus shall issue only when the subject of the writ invokes a legal duty to act or to forebear from acting. This recognition, coupled with our determination that the remaining issues contained in defendant's petition for discretionary review are either academic in nature or are rendered moot by this Court's allowance of defendant's multiple petitions for writ of certiorari, obliges us to view defendant's petition for discretionary review as improvidently allowed.
¶ 3 Defendant received a citation from an officer with the Raleigh Police Department charging him with the offenses of driving while impaired and driving without an operator's license on 4 April 2015. Defendant failed to appear for defendant's scheduled court date in the District Court, Wake County, on 24 February 2016, and on the following day, the trial court issued an order for defendant's arrest. While defendant's whereabouts were still unknown, the State dismissed defendant's charges with leave under the statutory authority and procedure of N.C. G.S. § 15A-932(a)(2) on 11 July 2016. While it appears that defendant did not possess a valid driver's license issued by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles at the time of his 4 April 2015 charges, defendant's ability to apply for and to receive a valid North Carolina driver's license was indefinitely foreclosed as the result of his failure to appear for his 24 February 2016 court date and the State's dismissal of his charges with leave. On 24 July 2018, defendant was arrested in Davidson County and served with the order for arrest which had resulted from his previous failure to appear in court in Wake County. Defendant was given a new Wake County court date of 9 November 2018; however, defendant again failed to appear as scheduled in the District Court, Wake County, and a second order for defendant's arrest was issued on 13 November 2018. Defendant was arrested on 12 December 2018 pursuant to the second order for arrest, and was given another court date in the District Court, Wake County, of 18 January 2019. However, defendant's court date was "advanced," or moved to an earlier date, and was set for the 14 December 2018 administrative session of the District Court, Wake County.
¶ 4 Defendant appeared for the 14 December 2018 administrative session of the District Court, Wake County, but the assistant district attorney declined to reinstate-in other words, to bring out of dismissed-with-leave status-defendant's two unresolved charges. Defendant therefore filed a Motion to Reinstate Charges in District Court on 28 January 2019. In his motion, defendant made several arguments addressing the claimed "duty," "inherent authority," and "mandate" of the District Court either to reinstate or to permanently dismiss defendant's outstanding charges. The motion was accompanied by two affidavits executed by licensed attorneys practicing in Wake County who both represented that it was the regular practice of the Wake County District Attorney's Office to decline to reinstate charges which had been placed in dismissed-with-leave status due to a defendant's failure to appear, unless the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the dismissed charges while simultaneously waiving the defendant's right to appeal these convictions to the Superior Court for a trial de novo. On 7 June 2019, defendant filed a document in the District Court, Wake County, captioned "Request for Prompt Adjudication of Defendant's Motion to Reinstate Charges" in which defendant asked the tribunal "to promptly adjudicate his previously filed Motion to Reinstate Charges" in light of the District Attorney's position. The chief district court judge responded to the filing, in a letter to defense counsel and the prosecutor dated 10 June 2019, that defendant's motion presented only questions of law, that an evidentiary hearing would not be required, and that the chief district court judge would consider any supportive filings by the parties "in arriving at a ruling in this matter."
To continue reading
Request your trial