State v. Meris
| Decision Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | COA22-300 |
| Citation | 2022 NCCOA 888 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE JUNIOR MERIS, Defendant |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 October 2022.
Appeal by Defendant from an order entered 26 October 2021 by Judge William A. Wood in Guilford County Nos. 14 CRS 592676-79, 15 CRS 68137, 16 CRS 24079-80, 16 CRS 24208, 16 CRS 24485-87, 16 CRS 65968, 16 CRS 66102-03, 16 CRS 67176-78, 16 CRS 78413, 16 CRS 69052-57, 16 CRS 69401-04, 16 CRS 69965 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kayla D. Britt, for the State.
Clyde Junior Meris, pro se.
¶ 1 Defendant Clyde Junior Meris, who filed over thirty duplicative post conviction motions in the trial court appeals following the entry of a gatekeeping order that prohibits him from filing additional post-conviction motions without prior review by a resident Guilford County Superior Court judge. On appeal, Defendant requests that we set aside the trial court's gatekeeping order, grant the relief requested in his underlying post-conviction motions, and conduct an Anders review of the trial court proceedings. After careful review we hold Defendant has failed to demonstrate error.
¶ 2 On 16 April 2018, Defendant entered an Alford plea to several charges for larceny, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve two consecutive terms of 128 to 166 months in prison and, with Defendant's consent, ordered that several items seized as evidence be returned to Defendant's wife.
¶ 3 Eight months later, Defendant began filing a serious of duplicative post conviction motions with the trial court pro se. These motions broadly requested: (1) production of a "stenographic transcript" and taped audio recording of his plea hearing; (2) the return to Defendant of certain evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; and (3) dismissal of the indictments and charges to which Defendant had entered an Alford plea. Defendant filed at least eighteen such motions between December 2018 and July 2020; the trial court denied all of them as meritless or duplicative. Defendant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court, which was denied.
¶ 4 Defendant filed more than 24 additional motions seeking largely the same relief as his prior motions. The trial court denied each of these motions, resolving any new claims on the merits and rejecting the remainder as duplicative of his prior motions. Six of the trial court's orders expressly warned Defendant that his continued filing of redundant motions could lead to entry of a gatekeeping order.
¶ 5 Defendant pursued additional means of redress outside the trial court. He filed a meritless judicial misconduct claim with the Judicial Standards Commission. He also sought the assistance of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, which informed Defendant that its review of his case file found no errors.
¶ 6 On 26 October 2021, following a hearing attended by Defendant, the trial court entered a gatekeeping order requiring that any post-conviction pleadings, referred to in the order as "filings or writings," bearing Defendant's name and filed with the Guilford County Clerk of Superior Court be reviewed by a resident Guilford County Superior Court judge. Under the order's terms, if the reviewing judge believes the pleading has potential merit, the document will be file stamped and placed in the appropriate casefile for resolution. Should the reviewing judge determine the pleading to be "frivolous, redundant, or generally baseless," it will be placed in a "holding file." After 18 months, the gatekeeping order will expire, and a resident Superior Court judge will review all of the held pleadings and determine whether the gatekeeping order should be renewed or modified. Defendant will have the opportunity to be heard in the event the reviewing judge determines that the gatekeeping order should be extended.
¶ 7 At the conclusion of the hearing on the gatekeeping order, Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.
¶ 8 Defendant, appearing pro se, requests this Court: (1) reverse the gatekeeping order; (2) order the trial court to compel production of a "stenographic transcript" and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the same; and (3) conduct an Anders review. The State, by motion and briefing, argues that Defendant's appeal should be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the gatekeeping order be affirmed.
¶ 9 Assuming arguendo that Defendant has no appeal of right from the gatekeeping order, we grant certiorari review of Defendant's appeal under N.C. R. App. P. 21 (2022). State v. SanMiguel, 74 N.C.App. 276, 277-78, 328 S.E.2d 326, 328 (1985). However, we limit our review to the propriety of the gatekeeping order because: (1) that is the only order included in the record on appeal; and (2) this Court previously denied certiorari review of the trial court's orders denying Defendant's requests for a "stenographic transcript" and related relief.
¶ 10 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial