{ "id": 11920889, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS BALDWIN SHOFF", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shoff", "decision_date": "1995-05-16", "docket_number": "No. 9428SC643", "first_page": "724", "last_page": "727", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 N.C. App. 724" } ], "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": "92 N.C.App. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526636 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Campbell L. Rev. 71", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Campbell L. Rev.", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" }, { "page": "134-135" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2486663, 2484905, 2485584, 2487670, 2484954 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0115-02", "/nc/324/0115-03", "/nc/324/0115-05", "/nc/324/0115-01", "/nc/324/0115-04" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 132", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "655", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576362 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E.2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "856" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572216 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "411" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 S.E.2d 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "693" }, { "page": "758" }, { "page": "693" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 N.C. App. 757", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523532 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "758" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/95/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 862", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "863" }, { "page": "863" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12168626 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "422-423" }, { "page": "422" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 S.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4721250, 4726152, 4720174, 4723376, 4721109 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0608-01", "/nc/313/0608-04", "/nc/313/0608-03", "/nc/313/0608-02", "/nc/313/0608-05" ] }, { "cite": "326 S.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" }, { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 N.C. App. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523263 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "260" }, { "page": "260" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/73/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 S.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 S.E.2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381-382" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629835 ], "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 1064", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1065-1066" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652604, 8652581 ], "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0426-02", "/nc/155/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 S.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Webb, 155 N.C. 426, 430, 70 S.E. 1064, 1065-1066 (1911)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523158 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Webb, 155 N.C. 426, 430, 70 S.E. 1064, 1065-1066 (1911)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 U.S. 651", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1917 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" }, { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/431/0651-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552762 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "639" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572343 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.C.App. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526636 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0203-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 483, "char_count": 8023, "ocr_confidence": 0.751, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.7291248112979903e-07, "percentile": 0.9294526437641731 }, "sha256": "2bd233086d6021bd7fb7b0f111017cc1b8dab7c7b816cf4efc71373fc6312430", "simhash": "1:1126856a723e26fc", "word_count": 1321 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:31.897721+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and JOHN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS BALDWIN SHOFF" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, MARK D., Judge.\nDefendant was charged with driving while impaired. On 17 November 1993 he was found guilty in District Court of Buncombe County, and he appealed to superior court. Defendant\u2019s case was called for trial on 3 January 1994. A jury was empaneled and the State presented two witnesses. Following recess of the trial for the day, three to six inches of snow fell in Buncombe County. Defendant\u2019s attorney and several of the jurors were unable to return to court on the next day. Defendant\u2019s case was rescheduled for trial on 6 January 1994, and was empaneled with a different jury. Defendant objected to the new jury. Because of the inability of the original jury to return to complete the case, Judge Allen declared a mistrial, and the case was continued until 23 February 1994. Defendant then moved to dismiss the charge on the ground of double jeopardy. Defendant\u2019s motion was denied, and he gave notice of appeal.\nOn appeal defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of driving while impaired after defendant pled the bar of double jeopardy.\nWe must first determine whether a statutory right to appeal exists in the present case. Defendant contends this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. The duty of an appellate court to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction is not contingent upon whether the issue has been preserved for appellate review. See Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 201, 240 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1978); Pasour v. Pierce, 46 N.C. App. 636, 639, 265 S.E.2d 652, 653 (1980).\nThe right to appeal in a criminal proceeding is purely statutory. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656, 52 L. Ed. 2d 651, 658 (1977). Generally, there is no right to appeal in a criminal case except from a conviction or upon a plea of guilty. State v. Howard, 70 N.C. App. 487, 488, 320 S.E.2d 17,18 (1984) (quoting State v. Webb, 155 N.C. 426, 430, 70 S.E. 1064, 1065-1066 (1911)). The order of the trial court denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss is not a final judgment and is, therefore, interlocutory. Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381-382, reh\u2019g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). We conclude defendant\u2019s appeal should be dismissed because it arises from a nonappealable interlocutory order.\nSection 15A-1444(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act, enacted in 1977, provides the exclusive statutory authority for appeals in criminal proceedings:\nProcedures for appeal to the appellate division are as provided in this Article [15A], the rules of the appellate division, and Chapter 7A of the General Statutes. The anneal must be perfected and conducted in accordance with the reouirements of those provisions.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(d) (1988) (emphasis added). Under the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure an appeal may be had by \u201c[a]ny party entitled by law to appeal from a judgment or order of a superior or district court rendered in a criminal action . . . .\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 4(a). Chapter 7A limits appeals in criminal proceedings to those taken from a final judgment. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27(b) (1989). Likewise, Chapter 15A limits appeals in criminal actions to those taken from a final judgment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-1444(a), et seq.; but see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1432(d)-(e) (statutory exception to final judgment rule where superior court reinstates charges dismissed in district court or affirms dismissal of charges by district court).\nUnder these statutes defendant has no right to immediate review of the order denying his motion to dismiss. However, in a series of decisions rendered by this Court, it has been held that the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277. See State v. Montalbano, 73 N.C. App. 259, 260, 326 S.E.2d 634, 635, disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 313 N.C. 608, 332 S.E.2d 182 (1985); State v. Major, 84 N.C. App. 421, 422-423, 352 S.E.2d 862, 863 (1987); State v. Johnson, 95 N.C. App. 757, 758, 383 S.E.2d 692, 693 (1989). We take this opportunity to review our prior decisions regarding the appealability of interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings.\nIn Montalbano, this Court relied on a substantial rights analysis under Sections 1-277 and 7A-27 to support the defendant\u2019s right to appeal. The Court held that the issue of whether a defendant will be subjected to double jeopardy constituted a substantial right, therefore immediate review was permitted. Montalbano, 73 N.C. App. at 260, 326 S.E.2d at 635. In Major this Court determined that previous rulings permitted an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal case where the order \u201cmay destroy or impair or seriously imperil some substantial right of the appellant.\u201d Major, 84 N.C. App. at 422, 352 S.E.2d at 863, (quoting State v. Bryant, 280 N.C. 407, 411, 185 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1972)); see also State v. Childs, 265 N.C. 575, 578, 144 S.E.2d 653, 655 (1965) (per curiam) (although the Court in Childs determined that no substantial right was affected by the order appealed from, an analysis based on Section 1-277 was applied).\nThe holdings in Montalbano and Major were reviewed by this Court in State v. Joseph, 92 N.C. App. 203, 374 S.E.2d 132 (1988), cert. denied, 324 N.C. 115, 377 S.E.2d 241 (1989). The Joseph Court noted that Section 15A-1444, which effectively precluded any substantial rights analysis under Section 1-277, was enacted subsequent to the holdings in Childs and Bryant. Id. at 206, 377 S.E.2d at 134. Accordingly, the Court concluded that enactment of Section 15A-1444(d) superseded the Supreme Court rulings in Childs and Bryant, and thereafter eliminated any statutory basis for applying Section 1-277 to the appeal of interlocutory orders issued in criminal proceedings. Id. at 206, 377 S.E.2d at 134-135.\nIn State v. Johnson, 95 N.C. App. 757, 383 S.E.2d 692 (1989), filed subsequent to the Joseph decision, this Court again applied a substantial rights analysis under Section 1-277 to an appeal in a criminal proceeding. Although concluding the trial court had entered a final judgment, the Johnson Court nonetheless invoked the provisions of Section 1-277 to establish the statutory basis for appellate review rather than the provisions of Section 15A-1444(d). Id. at 758, 383 S.E.2d at 693.\nWe believe the holding in State v. Joseph, supra, represents the better view in that reliance upon a substantial rights analysis as the basis for appellate review appears contrary to the plain and unambiguous language of the statutes governing criminal appeals. See generally J. Brad Donovan, The Substantial Rights Doctrine and Interlocutory Appeals, 17 Campbell L. Rev. 71 (1995).\nAccordingly, pursuant to the statutory limitations contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(d) and the reasoning in State v. Joseph, supra, defendant\u2019s appeal is dismissed as interlocutory and nonappealable.\nDismissed.\nJudges LEWIS and JOHN concur.\n. Because defendant appeals solely pursuant to statute, we decline to address the question of whether appropriate circumstances exist for the issuance of any extraordinary writ. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-32; N.C.R. App. P. 21, et seq.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, MARK D., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for the State.", "Wade Hall for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS BALDWIN SHOFF\nNo. 9428SC643\n(Filed 16 May 1995)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 115\u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 denial\u2014appeal interlocutory\nPursuant to the statutory limitations contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1444(d) and the reasoning in State v. Joseph, 92 N.C.App. 203, defendant\u2019s appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss made on double jeopardy grounds is dismissed as interlocutory and nonappealable.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 237, 239, 244.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 23 February 1994 by Judge C. Walter Allen in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 January 1995.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for the State.\nWade Hall for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0724-01", "first_page_order": 756, "last_page_order": 759 }