{
  "id": 11795195,
  "name": "DAVID WARREN DEW, Plaintiff/Appellee v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ALEXANDER KILLENS, COMMISSIONER, Defendant/Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dew v. State ex rel. North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles",
  "decision_date": "1997-08-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 96-1216",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "312",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 309"
    }
  ],
  "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": "407 S.E.2d 651",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2187111
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "652"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/305/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 F.2d 759",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        543050
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "762",
          "parenthetical": "\"there can be nothing more depraved or morally indefensible than conscious participation in the illicit drug traffic.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/213/0759-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "869 F.2d 245",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10528031
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/869/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "684 F. Supp. 900",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        7400403
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "904"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/684/0900-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "949 F. Supp. 1248",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        7799488
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1253"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/949/1248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 S.E.2d 365",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "369"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4778022
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "170"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1917,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "373"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N.C. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252113
      ],
      "year": 1917,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 L. Ed. 886",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "890"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 U.S. 223",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1148002
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "227"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/341/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-285",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 S.E.2d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2539448,
        2545427,
        2542900
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0098-03",
        "/nc/328/0098-01",
        "/nc/328/0098-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 S.E.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.C. App. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527049
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "502"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/100/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "443 S.E.2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "118"
        },
        {
          "page": "118"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 668",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527936
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "674"
        },
        {
          "page": "674"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0668-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "483 S.E.2d 388",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "392"
        },
        {
          "page": "392",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "internal quotes omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "392"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.C. 699",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        53839
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "706"
        },
        {
          "page": "706"
        },
        {
          "page": "706"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/345/0699-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 USC \u00a7 846",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 466,
    "char_count": 7357,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.929379517449828e-08,
      "percentile": 0.500816649928239
    },
    "sha256": "5964c53918e9674fb837b0c8c4dd4d2ed660539dbd748f3d373783d7f1df0311",
    "simhash": "1:bf0cc23ef585df53",
    "word_count": 1182
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges COZORT and MARTIN, John C., concur.",
      "Judge Cozort participated in this opinion prior to his resignation on 31 July 1997."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID WARREN DEW, Plaintiff/Appellee v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ALEXANDER KILLENS, COMMISSIONER, Defendant/Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nOn 6 October 1995, the Commissioner of the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked plaintiff David Warren Dew\u2019s motor vehicle dealer\u2019s license and motor vehicle salesman\u2019s license. This action resulted from plaintiff\u2019s 1 June 1995 conviction in federal district court for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 USC \u00a7 846, a Class E felony.\nPlaintiff filed this action on 31 October 1995, along with an application for a temporary restraining order, which was thereafter granted. In an order entered 26 July 1996, the trial court reversed DMV\u2019s decision and reinstated plaintiffs licenses. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff\u2019s felony conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana was not a felony involving moral turpitude upon which the Commissioner of DMV has authority to suspend or revoke licenses.\nThe issue before this Court is whether conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana is a crime involving moral turpitude.\nThe standard of review for the superior court of a final agency decision \u201cdepends upon the particular issues presented on appeal.\u201d ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health Services, 345 N.C. 699, 706, 483 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1997); Amanini v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C. App. 668, 674, 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(b) provides:\n[T]he court reviewing a final decision may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. It may also reverse or modify the agency\u2019s decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:\n* * *\n(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;\n(4) Affected by other error of law;\n* * *\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\nG.S. \u00a7 150B-51(b) (1995). Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that DMV\u2019s decision was prejudicial to him under all the above provisions.\nJudicial review of whether an agency decision was based on an error of law requires a de novo review. Walker v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 100 N.C. App. 498, 502, 397 S.E.2d 350, 354 (1990), review denied, 328 N.C. 98, 402 S.E.2d 430 (1991). When the plaintiff questions \u201cwhether the decision was arbitrary or capricious,\u201d the \u2018whole record\u2019 test must be applied. ACT-UP, 345 N.C. at 706, 483 S.E.2d at 392 (citation omitted). The \u2018whole record\u2019 test requires the reviewing court to examine all competent evidence (the \u2018whole record\u2019) in order to determine whether the agency decision is supported by \u2018substantial evidence.\u2019 Id. (internal quotes omitted) (quoting Amanini, 114 N.C. App. at 674, 443 S.E.2d at 118).\nDMV administers Chapter 20, Article 12 of the N.C. General Statutes, also known as the Motor Vehicle Dealers and Manufacturers Licensing Law. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-285 et. seq. (1993). A DMV hearing officer held plaintiff in violation of G.S. \u00a7 20-294, which states in pertinent part:\nThe Division may deny, suspend, or revoke a license issued under this Article for any one or more of the following grounds:\n* * *\n(9) ... being convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude under the laws of this State, another state, or the United States.\nG.S. \u00a7 20-294 (1993) (emphasis added). The trial court made no findings that DMV acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and reversed DMVs decision based solely upon its conclusion of law that plaintiff\u2019s crime was not one involving moral turpitude. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in ACT-UP, we review the superior court\u2019s order regarding its agency review for error of law. ACT-UP, 345 N.C. at 706, 483 S.E.2d at 392. Therefore, we must determine if the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law that plaintiff\u2019s crime was not one involving moral turpitude was in error.\nContrary to plaintiff\u2019s contention, the term \u2018moral turpitude\u2019 is deeply rooted in American law. See Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 227, 95 L. Ed. 886, 890 (1951). Our Supreme Court long ago defined crimes involving moral turpitude as \u201cact[s] of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties that a man owes to his fellowman or to society in general.\u201d Jones v. Brinkley, 174 N.C. 23, 27, 93 S.E. 372, 373 (1917). The Court recently repeated this definition in State v. Mann, 317 N.C. 164, 170, 345 S.E.2d 365, 369 (1986).\nIn a recent federal decision from the Middle District of North Carolina, the court stated \u201c[virtually all courts agree that narcotics possession with intent to distribute is a crime involving moral turpitude.\u201d Alexander v. Exxon Co., 949 F. Supp. 1248, 1253 (M.D.N.C.1996) (quoting Portaluppi v. Shell Oil Co., 684 F. Supp. 900, 904 (E.D. Va. 1988) aff\u2019d 869 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1989)); see also United States ex rel. Deluca v. O\u2019Rourke, 213 F.2d 759, 762 (8th Cir. 1954) (\u201cthere can be nothing more depraved or morally indefensible than conscious participation in the illicit drug traffic.\u201d). The Supreme Court of South Carolina, which similarly defines acts of moral turpitude as those involving \u201cbaseness, vileness, or depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man or to society in general,\u201d recently held trafficking in marijuana to be a crime involving moral turpitude. Green v. Hewett, 407 S.E.2d 651, 652 (S.C. 1991).\nWe hold as a matter of law that the felony of \u2018conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana\u2019 is a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the trial court erred in its conclusion of law and the order of the trial court is hereby reversed. This matter is remanded to the superior court for subsequent remand to DMV with direction to reinstate DMV\u2019s order of 6 October 1995 consistent with our opinion herein.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges COZORT and MARTIN, John C., concur.\nJudge Cozort participated in this opinion prior to his resignation on 31 July 1997.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McGEE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee & Lee, Attorneys, by Junius B. Lee, III, for 'plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Bryan E. Beatty, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID WARREN DEW, Plaintiff/Appellee v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ALEXANDER KILLENS, COMMISSIONER, Defendant/Appellant\nNo. 96-1216\n(Filed 19 August 1997)\n1. Administrative Law and Procedure \u00a7 67 (NCI4th)\u2014 judicial review \u2014 arbitrary or capricious decision \u2014 whole record test\nJudicial review of whether an agency\u2019s decision was arbitrary or capricious requires a \u201cwhole record\u201d review, which requires the reviewing court to examine all competent evidence to determine whether the agency decision was supported by \u201csubstantial evidence.\u201d\n2. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 172 (NCI4th)\u2014 felony involving marijuana \u2014 moral turpitude \u2014 revocation of dealer\u2019s and salesman\u2019s licenses\nThe felony of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana is, as a matter of law, a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of the statute permitting the Department of Motor Vehicles to revoke a motor vehicle dealer\u2019s license and a motor vehicle salesman\u2019s license upon the licensee\u2019s conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-294(9).\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 26 July 1996 by Judge D. Jack Hooks in Columbus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 April 1997.\nLee & Lee, Attorneys, by Junius B. Lee, III, for 'plaintiff-appellee.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Bryan E. Beatty, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 348
}