{
  "id": 12134430,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK A. MUSCIA, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Muscia",
  "decision_date": "1994-07-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 931SC454",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 498"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "440 S.E.2d 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527173
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 238",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771759
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0238-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2845,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.716,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2459807502290674
    },
    "sha256": "0c2b8397649e3fcafa88742a6c17bcb8af1a8447491008101f3d39ec7d6b7aab",
    "simhash": "1:ed82d0937dfdc17b",
    "word_count": 444
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:18.676868+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and WYNN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK A. MUSCIA, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nThe only question before us is whether the trial court properly considered defendant\u2019s prior driving while impaired conviction to enhance the punishment imposed for this offense of driving while impaired. Defendant contends the trial court should not have considered his prior DWI conviction of May 1990 because it was based on a guilty plea which was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, defendant contends the prior guilty plea could not be considered because it was invalid under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Defendant contends the plea was entered without defendant first being advised of his right against compulsory self-incrimination and his right to confront his witnesses against him. We affirm.\nDefendant was arrested for driving while impaired on 3 January 1992. Defendant was convicted of driving while impaired in district court. Thereafter, defendant appealed to the superior court. Defendant entered a guilty plea and made a motion to suppress the prior 1990 conviction for purposes of sentencing. The motion was heard by the Honorable Gary E. Trawick on 1 February 1993. Judge Trawick denied defendant\u2019s motion, considered defendant\u2019s prior 1990 DWI conviction as a grossly aggravating factor, and imposed a level two punishment.\nInstate v. Stafford, 114 N.C. App. 101, 440 S.E.2d 846 (1994), this Court held that a defendant could not collaterally attack the validity of his prior convictions in a habitual impaired driving case. The defendant in Stafford moved to suppress the admission of his prior DWI convictions in his habitually impaired driving trial on grounds that they were invalid under Boykin v. Alabama. We find Stafford controlling here, where defendant seeks to suppress the use of his prior conviction to aggravate the sentence imposed for a subsequent DWI offense on grounds that the prior conviction was invalid under Boykin. Thus, following Stafford, we find the trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and by considering defendant\u2019s prior DWI conviction.\nAffirmed.\nJudges GREENE and WYNN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for the State.",
      "Aycock, Spence & Butler, by W. Mark Spence, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK A. MUSCIA, Defendant\nNo. 931SC454\n(Filed 5 July 1994)\nAutomobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 818.1 (NCI4th)\u2014 habitual impaired driving \u2014 no collateral attack on prior convictions\nA defendant cannot collaterally attack the validity of his prior convictions in a prosection for habitual impaired driving.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 310.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 February 1993 by Judge Gary E. Trawick in Dare County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 January 1994.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for the State.\nAycock, Spence & Butler, by W. Mark Spence, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 532
}