State v. Franklin
| Decision Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 36A13.,36A13. |
| Citation | 752 S.E.2d 143 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Malik Shaheem FRANKLIN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 736 S.E.2d 218 (2012), affirming an order denying defendant's motion to suppress which resulted in a judgment entered on 8 November 2011 by Judge Hugh B. Lewis in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 4 September 2013.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Andrew J. DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Justice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See, e.g., Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary, 365 N.C. 305, 716 S.E.2d 849 (2011); Goldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Killette
...763 S.E.2d at 589 (citing State v. Franklin, 224 N.C. App. 337, 736 S.E.2d 218, aff'd per curiam by equally divided court , 367 N.C. 183, 752 S.E.2d 143 (2013) ).Our Supreme Court has addressed this Court's responsibility when faced with two arguably inconsistent opinions from separate pane......
-
State v. Ellis, COA 19-59
...de novo [.]" State v. Franklin , 224 N.C. App. 337, 346, 736 S.E.2d 218, 223 (2012), aff'd by an equally divided court , 367 N.C. 183, 752 S.E.2d 143 (2013) (quotations and citation omitted)."The fourth amendment as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment protects citizens fr......