State v. Pennell
| Decision Date | 03 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 371PA13.,371PA13. |
| Citation | 748 S.E.2d 534 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. William Herbert PENNELL, IV. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
STATE of North Carolina
v.
William Herbert PENNELL, IV.
No. 371PA13.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Oct. 3, 2013.
Jason Yoder, for Pennell IV, William Herbert.
Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.
Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.
Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 26th of August 2013 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Carolina Court of Appeals:
“Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of October 2013.”
Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of August 2013 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A–31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
“Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of October 2013.”
Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rue 15(g)(2).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCulloch
... ... Pennell, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 746 S.E.2d 431, 441, stay granted, ––– N.C. ––––, 747 S.E.2d 247, disc. review granted, ––– N.C. ––––, 748 S.E.2d 534 (2013). Although the Supreme Court has stayed our decision in Pennell, we find the logic set out ... ...
-
State v. Pennell, 371PA13.
...N.C.App. at ––––, 746 S.E.2d at 442–44. On 3 October 2013, we allowed the State's petition for discretionary review. State v. Pennell, ––– N.C. ––––, 748 S.E.2d 534 (2013). The issue now before this Court is whether a defendant may collaterally challenge the validity of an underlying indict......
- In re E.H., 302PA13–1.