Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon and first-degree murder. The trial judge sentenced Defendant to a term of life imprisonment without parole for his murder conviction. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for appropriate relief requesting that his life without parole sentence must be vacated and a constitutionally permissible sentence be imposed upon him instead. In support of his motion, Defendant relied upon Miller v. Alabama. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion on the basis that Miller did not apply retroactively to Defendant’s case. The case was certified for review. The Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing for the purpose of allowing the parties to address the effect of the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. As the State conceded in its supplemental brief, the State’s non-retroactivity argument does not survive Montgomery. Therefore, Defendant was entitled to be resentenced, and the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for appropriate relief is reversed. Remanded. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) imposed a public reprimand on Judge Jerry R. Tillett (Defendant), a judge in Judicial District One of the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for misconduct while in public office. Defendant accepted the reprimand, and the JSC’s official filing constituted the Commission’s final action on the matter. Two years after Defendant accepted the reprimand, the State Bar commenced a disciplinary action against Defendant by filing a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission (DHC). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The DHC denied the motion to dismiss, arguing that the DHC infringes upon the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction by initiating attorney disciplinary proceedings against a sitting member of the General Court of Justice for conduct while in office. The Supreme Court reversed the DHC’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the DHC lacks the authority to investigate and discipline Defendant for his conduct while in office. View "North Carolina State Bar v. Tillett" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged legislation that authorizes the General Assembly to appoint a majority of the voting members of three administrative commissions, alleging that, by giving itself the power to appoint commission members, the General Assembly had usurped the Governor’s constitutional appointment power and prevented him from performing his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The superior court determined that the challenged appointment provisions did not violate the appointments clause but did violate the separation of powers clause. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the appointments clause places no restrictions on the General Assembly’s ability to appoint statutory officers; but (2) the challenged provisions violate the separation of powers clause because the legislative branch has exerted too much control over commissions that have final executive authority and thus interfered with the Governor’s ability to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. View "State ex rel. McCrory v. Berger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s employment as a deputy sheriff was terminated following the reelection of Defendant to the office of Sheriff of Mecklenburg County. Plaintiff filed suit alleging wrongful termination in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 153A-99 and N.C. Const. art. I, 14 and 36. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff could not establish a claim for wrongful termination in violation of section 153A-99 and that Plaintiff’s state constitutional claims lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff was not a county employee as defined in section 153A-99, and therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to the protections provided in that statute; and (2) Defendant’s actions did not violate Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech. View "Young v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant, a registered sex offender, was found guilty of failure to provide timely written notice of his change of address. Defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment was fatally defective because it identified the date of offense as a five month span, and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to notice was violated because the indictment failed properly to allege the time period within which he was required to file his report to the appropriate sheriff when he changed his address. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s indictment was valid because it adequately apprised Defendant of the conduct that was the basis of the charge against him, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Following the 2010 decennial census, the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs, registered voters, filed a complaint seeking to have the redistricting plans declared invalid on both constitutional and statutory grounds. The three-judge panel reviewing the redistricting plans upheld the plans. The Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated this Court’s opinion and remanded for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. The Supreme Court reconsidered this case in light of Alabama and affirmed the three-judge panel’s judgment, holding that the General Assembly’s enacted plans do not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and satisfy state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements. Moreover, the three-judge panel’s decision fully complies with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama. View "Dickson v. Rucho" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for accessing a commercial social networking Web site as a registered sex offender in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202.5. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 14-202.5 is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him. The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant’s conviction, concluding that the statute violates the First Amendment and thus is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 14-202.5 is constitutional on its face, is constitutional as applied to Defendant, and is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. View "State v. Packingham" on Justia Law

An investigation that began with an anonymous complaint to police led to a search of Defendant’s home. The police applied for and received a warrant to search the apartment. When the warrant was executed, the officers discovered controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm and ammunition. Defendant was arrested and indicted for drug trafficking, drug possession, and firearm charges. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his residence, arguing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant later pleaded guilty to several charges. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the the totality of circumstances, the evidence described in the affidavit was sufficient to support the magistrate’s finding of probable cause to search Defendant’s apartment. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, twenty-five taxpayers, filed a complaint challenging the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows a small number of students in lower-income families to receive scholarships from the State to attend private school. The trial court declared the Opportunity Scholarship Program legislation unconstitutional on its face and permanently enjoined further implementation and enforcement of the legislation, including the disbursement of public funds. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and final judgment and dissolved the injunction, holding that no prohibition in the Constitution or in precedent foreclosed the General Assembly’s enactment of the challenged legislation in this case. View "Hart v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine by possession, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court committed plain error by failing to adequately instruct the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he had possessed and transported cocaine. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions and awarded him a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with footnote four to N.C.P.I. Crim. 260.17 and 260.30 because the trial court’s instructions here adequately addressed the issue that the jury had to decide to determine Defendant’s guilt or innocence. View "State v. Galaviz-Torres" on Justia Law