State v. Lewis, 110519 NCCA, COA17-888-2
|Docket Nº:||COA17-888-2, COA17-1051-2|
|Opinion Judge:||Dietz, Judge.|
|Party Name:||STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT DWAYNE LEWIS|
|Attorney:||Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Milind Dongre, for the State. Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kathryn L. VandenBerg, for defendant.|
|Judge Panel:||Judges ARROWOOD and BROOK concur.|
|Case Date:||November 05, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of North Carolina|
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
On remand by opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court on 16 August 2019 in State v. Lewis, __ N.C. __, 831 S.E.2d 37 (2019), reversing in part and remanding this Court's decisions filed 1 May 2018. Cases originally appealed by defendant from judgments entered 7 February 2017 by Judge Richard T. Brown in Hoke County Superior Court Nos. 14 CRS 51735-37, 15 CRS 557 and judgments entered 6 April 2017 by Judge Kendra D. Hill in Johnston County Superior Court Nos. 14 CRS 55560, 55877.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Milind Dongre, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kathryn L. VandenBerg, for defendant.
These consolidated cases returned to us on remand from our Supreme Court "for determination by the Court of Appeals whether the evidence seized from the Kia Optima was admissible under the plain view doctrine." State v. Lewis, __ N.C. __, __, 831 S.E.2d 37, 47 (2019). Because the plain view exception to the warrant requirement does not apply, we vacate the trial courts' judgments and remand these cases to the trial court with instructions to grant Lewis's motions to suppress with respect to evidence seized from the Kia Optima.
Facts and Procedural History
The facts and procedural history of this case are described in the Supreme Court's opinion. State v. Lewis, __ N.C. __, 831 S.E.2d 37 (2019). In its mandate, the Supreme Court held that "we affirm the portions of the Court of Appeals' decisions holding that defendant's motion to suppress should have been allowed as to evidence seized from defendant's residence and reverse the portions of the Court of Appeals' decisions holding that probable cause existed to support the issuance of the search...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP