{
  "id": 11919197,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER MORGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Morgan",
  "decision_date": "1995-04-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA94-1196",
  "first_page": "461",
  "last_page": "464",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 461"
    }
  ],
  "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": "432 S.E.2d 877",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523431
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0662-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 S.E.2d 673",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4741158
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-113.106",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(3)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-113.110",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(h)(3)(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 S.E.2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "707"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4717320
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "451"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S.Ct. 1937",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        1147262,
        6536110
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1948"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/511/0767-01",
        "/br/166/1937-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 5316,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.725,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.644524892947116e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5278549058265559
    },
    "sha256": "0ddbecf1bb194b02a8537427ec52cd5e20719a2ddf42c253376562f5a0d72d58",
    "simhash": "1:858d0876f05a7570",
    "word_count": 864
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:31.897721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges COZORT and MARTIN, JOHN C. concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER MORGAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for appropriate relief because his convictions for trafficking in cocaine by possession and for failure to pay excise tax on the controlled substance constitute double jeopardy. He argues that the punishments imposed upon those convictions violate the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense, citing Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994). We disagree and find no error.\nWe first address the State\u2019s contention that defendant\u2019s appeal should be dismissed. The State correctly contends that defendant has no right to appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion for appropriate relief but must raise this issue by writ of certiorari. A trial \u201ccourt\u2019s ruling on a motion for appropriate relief pursuant to G.S. 15A-1415 is subject to review . . . [i]f the time for appeal has expired and no appeal is pending, by writ of certiorari.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1422(c)(3) (1988). This Court disposed of defendant\u2019s appeal from his convictions approximately ten months before defendant filed his motion for appropriate relief with the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s ruling on defendant\u2019s motion for appropriate relief is reviewable only by writ of certiorari. Id. In our discretion and pursuant to Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, we treat defendant's attempted appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari, issue the writ, and address the merits.\n\u201cThe Double Jeopardy Clause protects against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.\u201d State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444, 451, 340 S.E.2d 701, 707 (1986). In Kurth Ranch, the United States Supreme Court found an attempt by the State of Montana to collect a civil drug tax in a proceeding subsequent to the criminal prosecution to be \u201cthe functional equivalent of a successive criminal prosecution that placed the Kurths in jeopardy a second time \u2018for the same offence [sic].\u2019 \u201d Kurth Ranch, 114 S.Ct. at 1948. The Court further stated that such a second punishment \u201cmust be imposed during the first prosecution or not at all.\u201d Id.\nIn the case sub judice, the State sought to collect the drug excise tax from defendant in the same prosecution. Therefore, successive criminal prosecutions are not an issue. As for defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court imposed multiple punishments for the same offense, it is without merit. The State charged defendant with violating two distinct criminal statutes which required proof of different elements. Trafficking in cocaine by possession requires that an individual possess twenty-eight grams or more, but less than 200 grams, of cocaine. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(3)(a) (1993). The offense of failure to pay excise tax on controlled substances involves possession of seven or more grams of a controlled substance \u201cupon which the tax due under this Article has not been paid, as evidenced by a stamp....\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-113.110(a) (1992); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-113.106(3) (1992). Since neither of the crimes in question is a lesser included offense of the other, the convictions fail to support a plea of double jeopardy. See State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 352 S.E.2d 673 (1987). We hold that defendant was not put twice in jeopardy by being sentenced both for trafficking in cocaine by possession and for failure to pay excise tax on a controlled substance.\nNo error.\nJudges COZORT and MARTIN, JOHN C. concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher E. Allen, for the State.",
      "David L. Best for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER MORGAN\nNo. COA94-1196\n(Filed 4 April 1995)\nNarcotics, Controlled Substances, and Paraphernalia \u00a7 34 (NCI4th)\u2014 trafficking in cocaine by possession \u2014 failure to pay excise tax on a controlled substance \u2014 no double jeopardy\nDefendant was not put twice in jeopardy by being sentenced both for trafficking in cocaine by possession and for failure to pay excise tax on a controlled substance, since successive criminal prosecutions were not an issue; defendant was charged with two distinct criminal statutes which required proof of different elements; and neither of the crimes in question was a lesser included offense of the other.\nAm Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons \u00a7\u00a7 27.13 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 29 July 1994 by Judge James R. Strickland in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 March 1995.\nOn 3 April 1992, a jury found defendant guilty both of trafficking in cocaine by possession and of failure to pay excise tax on controlled substances. The trial court imposed sentences of seven years and two years for the respective convictions and defendant appealed. This Court found no error in State v. Morgan, 111 N.C. App. 662, 432 S.E.2d 877 (1993).\nOn 9 June 1994, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief with the trial court contending that his convictions for trafficking and for failure to pay excise tax placed him in jeopardy twice for the same offense and were unconstitutional. From the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher E. Allen, for the State.\nDavid L. Best for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0461-01",
  "first_page_order": 493,
  "last_page_order": 496
}