{ "id": 11215760, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ROY ELLIS BAGGETT, Defendant; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ED PENUEL, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Baggett", "decision_date": "1999-04-20", "docket_number": "No. COA98-636", "first_page": "47", "last_page": "52", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "133 N.C. App. 47" } ], "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": "349 N.C. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571654, 571592, 571577, 571515, 571486 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0361-01", "/nc/349/0361-05", "/nc/349/0361-04", "/nc/349/0361-03", "/nc/349/0361-02" ] }, { "cite": "499 S.E.2d 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "785" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N.C. App. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11650482 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/129/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "496 S.E.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551173, 551144, 551281, 551287, 551128 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0400-02", "/nc/347/0400-05", "/nc/347/0400-03", "/nc/347/0400-01", "/nc/347/0400-04" ] }, { "cite": "493 S.E.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551297, 551202, 551306, 551118, 551282 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0268-05", "/nc/347/0268-01", "/nc/347/0268-04", "/nc/347/0268-02", "/nc/347/0268-03" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11792467 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557", "parenthetical": "\"Statutorily granted powers are to be strictly construed.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566429 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257", "parenthetical": "\"Statutorily granted powers are to be strictly construed.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 153", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530500, 2527691, 2526830, 2530292, 2528541 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0240-03", "/nc/335/0240-04", "/nc/335/0240-02", "/nc/335/0240-05", "/nc/335/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 S.E.2d 748", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "750" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522953 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "312 S.E.2d 707", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 N.C. App. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526370 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/67/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 S.E.2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "445" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11913460 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 S.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4726720, 4725094, 4724585, 4723949, 4724798 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0797-02", "/nc/320/0797-03", "/nc/320/0797-05", "/nc/320/0797-01", "/nc/320/0797-04" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 N.C. App. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12126192 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/86/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526878 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 S.E.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790", "parenthetical": "dismissing appeal for failure to state the legal basis on which error was assigned" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N.C. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11650847 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "423" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/129/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 S.E.2d 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4758398 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571654, 571592, 571577, 571515, 571486 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0361-01", "/nc/349/0361-05", "/nc/349/0361-04", "/nc/349/0361-03", "/nc/349/0361-02" ] }, { "cite": "499 S.E.2d 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "785" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "129 N.C. App. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11650482 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/129/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "496 S.E.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551173, 551144, 551281, 551287, 551128 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0400-02", "/nc/347/0400-05", "/nc/347/0400-03", "/nc/347/0400-01", "/nc/347/0400-04" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11792467 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0102-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 592, "char_count": 12632, "ocr_confidence": 0.773, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5605062153773415e-07, "percentile": 0.8152992703435605 }, "sha256": "45fbe242c4e1b159eb9dae83d0b68424adeb2186aece9dac94797abd74d1e508", "simhash": "1:4b79d47288bf1054", "word_count": 1959 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:41:36.377256+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge HORTON concurs.", "Judge LEWIS dissents." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ROY ELLIS BAGGETT, Defendant STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ED PENUEL, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThe State appeals from the superior court\u2019s order affirming the district court\u2019s dismissal of criminal charges against Roy Ellis Baggett and Ed Penuel (collectively, Defendants).\nDefendants own and operate Tobie\u2019s Lounge, a topless bar located less than one mile outside the city limits of Jacksonville, North Carolina, in Onslow County. On 26 August 1997, Defendants were each charged with \u201cknowingly and intentionally operating] an adult business known as Tobie\u2019s Lounge within 1,000 feet of a building used as a residence\u201d in violation of Onslow County Ordinance \u00a7 8-205. Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the charges on 30 September 1997. The district court allowed Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss on 19 November 1997, and the State gave notice of appeal to the superior court. On 27 February 1998, the superior court affirmed dismissal of the charges against Defendants. The State appeals from the superior court\u2019s order.\nBefore addressing the merits of the State\u2019s appeal, we note that our scope of review on appeal is confined to properly presented assignments of error. Rogers v. Colpitts, 129 N.C. App. 421, 499 S.E.2d 789 (1998). Rule 10 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that \u201c[e]ach assignment of error shall. . . state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1). One purpose of this rule is to \u201cidentify for the appellee\u2019s benefit all the errors possibly to be urged on appeal... so that the appellee may properly assess the sufficiency of the proposed record on appeal to protect his position.\u201d Kimmel v. Brett, 92 N.C. App. 331, 335, 374 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1988).\nIn this case, the State\u2019s only assignment of error is: \u201cThe trial court acted incorrectly as a matter of law in affirming the District Court\u2019s ruling dismissing the above referenced charges.\u201d The State failed to set forth in its assignment of error the legal basis on which it contends the trial court erred, and has thereby subjected this appeal to dismissal. See Rogers, 129 N.C. App. at 423, 499 S.E.2d at 790 (dismissing appeal for failure to state the legal basis on which error was assigned). The State did include, in its Notice of Appeal to this Court, the legal basis on which it challenged the trial court\u2019s ruling, noting its contention that the trial court erred \u201cbecause the Ordinance in question is a police power ordinance .... The city of Jacksonville has no jurisdiction to enact police power ordinances in [its extraterritorial jurisdiction]. Therefore, Tobie\u2019s Lounge is not located within the [county] \u2018exclusive of the jurisdiction of any incorporated municipality.\u2019 \u201d Although including this information in the notice of appeal does not cure the State\u2019s inadequate assignment of error, it did inform the appellees of the issues to be raised and thereby allowed the appellees to protect their interests by assessing the sufficiency of the proposed record on appeal. Accordingly, in our discretion, we review the merits of the State\u2019s appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 2 (providing that this Court may \u201csuspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any of these rules\u201d in order to \u201cprevent manifest injustice\u201d or \u201cexpedite decision in the public interest\u201d).\nFor purposes of this appeal, we assume that Tobie\u2019s Lounge violates the Onslow County adult business ordinance. Accordingly, the only issue is whether the Onslow County adult business ordinance applies to businesses, such as Tobie\u2019s Lounge, located within the area one mile outside Jacksonville\u2019s city limits.\nArticle 6 (\u201cDelegation of Police Powers\u201d) of Chapter 153A (\u201cCounties\u201d) provides: \u201cA county may by ordinance define, regulate, prohibit, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the county; and may define and abate nuisances.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-121(a) (1991). The county\u2019s authority under Article 6 extends \u201cto any part of the county not within a city.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-122 (1991). It follows that Onslow County has statutory authority to enact an ordinance regulating all businesses located outside the city limits of Jacksonville. The remaining question is whether Onslow County did so. See Town of Lake Waccamaw v. Savage, 86 N.C. App. 211, 356 S.E.2d 810 (holding that town was authorized to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction but had not done so), disc. review denied, 320 N.C. 797, 361 S.E.2d 89 (1987).\nThe Onslow County adult business ordinance, enacted in 1992, provides:\nSec. 8-201. Authority and jurisdiction.\nThe provisions of this article are adopted by the county board of commissioners under authority granted by the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina, in Chapter 153A, (45-50) and further Article VI of Chapter 153A, Section 135 of the General Statutes. From and after the effective date hereof, this article shall apply to every building, lot, tract or parcel of land within the county exclusive of the jurisdiction of any incorporated municipality (as herein stated) ....\nOnslow County, N.C., Code art. VII, \u00a7 8-201 (1992) (emphasis added).\nIn construing ordinances, we adhere to fundamental principles of statutory construction. Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C. App. 400, 404, 473 S.E.2d 442, 445 (1996). Where the language employed is clear and unambiguous, there is \u201cno room for judicial construction.\u201d Avco Financial Services v. Isbell, 67 N.C. App. 341, 343, 312 S.E.2d 707, 708 (1984). Where the language employed is ambiguous, however, we must strictly construe language creating a criminal offense. State v. Clemmons, 111 N.C. App. 569, 572, 433 S.E.2d 748, 750, cert. denied, 335 N.C. 240, 439 S.E.2d 153 (1993); see also Davidson County v. City of High Point, 321 N.C. 252, 257, 362 S.E.2d 553, 557 (1987) (\u201cStatutorily granted powers are to be strictly construed.\u201d).\nIn this case, the Onslow County adult business ordinance explicitly applies only to businesses located within Onslow County \u201cexclusive of the jurisdiction\u201d of Jacksonville. This phrase is ambiguous because Jacksonville has \u201cextraterritorial jurisdiction\u201d over areas within one mile of its city limits. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360(a) (Supp. 1998) (providing that an incorporated municipality may extend its jurisdiction outside its borders by one to three miles); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-193 (1994) (giving municipalities \u201cauthority to summarily remove, abate, or remedy everything in the city limits, or within one mile thereof, that is dangerous or prejudicial to the public health or public safety\u201d). It is therefore unclear whether the Onslow County adult business ordinance applies to businesses outside Jacksonville\u2019s city limits, or whether it applies only to those businesses outside Jacksonville\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, strictly construing Onslow County\u2019s adult business ordinance as written, it does not apply to businesses located within Jacksonville\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Because Tobie\u2019s Lounge is located within Jacksonville\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction, it follows that the trial court correctly dismissed the charges against Defendants.\nAffirmed.\nJudge HORTON concurs.\nJudge LEWIS dissents.\n. Previous cases of this Court have established that Onslow County enacted its adult business ordinance pursuant to its Chapter 153A, Article 6 police power jurisdiction. See Maynor v. Onslow County, 127 N.C. App. 102, 106, 488 S.E.2d 289, 292, appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 268, 493 S.E.2d 458, and cert. denied, 347 N.C. 400, 496 S.E.2d 385 (1997); Onslow County v. Moore, 129 N.C. App. 376, 382, 499 S.E.2d 780, 785, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 361, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014, \u2014 (1998). In addition to this statutory authority to impose its ordinances outside the Jacksonville city limits, the Jacksonville city council specifically adopted a resolution granting Onslow County the authority to \u201cenforc[e] its adult business ordinance\u201d against businesses located within Jacksonville\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction, the area one mile outside Jacksonville\u2019s city limits. Jacksonville, N.C., Res. 96-03, Regular Sess. (1996).", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge Lewis\ndissenting.\nThe parties have stipulated that Tobie\u2019s Lounge is a business of the type regulated by Section 8-205 of the Onslow County Code. The ordinance says it is adopted \u201cunder authority granted by . . . Chapter 153A,\u201d and that it applies to any \u201cland within the county exclusive of the jurisdiction of any incorporated municipality (as herein stated).\u201d Onslow County Code \u00a7 8-201 (1992) (emphasis added). The parenthetical indicates that \u201cjurisdiction\u201d refers to jurisdiction under police powers, the \u201cherein stated\u201d Chapter 153A at issue. There is no mention anywhere in the ordinance of any planning or zoning statutes; rather, the ordinance cites only police power statutes. Furthermore, although the City\u2019s resolution titled, \u201cA RESOLUTION ALLOWING ONSLOW COUNTY TO ENFORCE ITS ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE WITHIN THE CITY\u2019S ONE-MILE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION,\u201d is not dispositive of the issue, it provides further notice to defendants that the County ordinance applies to their establishment. Finally, section 8-202 clarifies that the ordinance is intended to regulate adult businesses \u201clocated in the county.\u201d Onslow County Code \u00a7 8-202 (1992).\nAccordingly, I disagree with the majority\u2019s reasoning that the ordinance is vague in its use of the term \u201cjurisdiction\u201d and that defendants might lack notice of the applicability of this ordinance to their business. Courts presume that defendants know the law, see State v. Rose, 312 N.C. 441, 446, 323 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1984), and this specific ordinance was adopted pursuant to County police powers according to our prior case law. See Onslow County v. Moore, 129 N.C. App. 376, 382, 499 S.E.2d 780, 785, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 361, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014 (1998); Maynor v. Onslow County, 127 N.C. App. 102, 106, 488 S.E.2d 289, 292, cert. denied, 347 N.C. 400, 496 S.E.2d 385 (1997). When the ordinance refers to jurisdiction \u201cas herein stated,\u201d and no mention ever is made to planning or zoning statutes, or any statutes other than police power statutes, \u201cjurisdiction\u201d can mean only jurisdiction under the County\u2019s police powers. \u201cJurisdiction\u201d in the ordinance is not a vague term.\nThe majority insinuates that these defendants might reasonably have believed they were operating their topless bar outside the reach of Onslow County police powers to regulate them and outside the City\u2019s power to regulate since they were within the City\u2019s jurisdiction only for zoning and planning purposes. I cannot believe that these business owners operated under the assumption that they had found a strip club utopia where no municipal force regulated for the health, safety, and welfare of the people. This Court had provided defendants notice that this County ordinance regulated topless bars such as theirs, and that it was enacted pursuant to the County\u2019s police powers. There is no ambiguity in the term \u201cjurisdiction\u201d in the County ordinance, and I vote to reverse and remand for trial.\nI respectfully dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Judge Lewis" } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Jill Ledford Cheek, for the State.", "Lanier & Fountain, by Keith E. Fountain, for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ROY ELLIS BAGGETT, Defendant STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ED PENUEL, Defendant\nNo. COA98-636\n(Filed 20 April 1999)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 assignments of error \u2014 legal basis for error required\nThe State\u2019s appeal was subject to dismissal where the assignment of error failed to set forth the legal basis on which the State contended the trial court erred; however, the State included in the notice of appeal the legal basis on which it challenged the ruling and, since the appellees were informed of the issues to be raised and were thereby allowed to protect their interests, the appeal was reviewed under Appellate Rule 2.\n2. Zoning\u2014 adult business \u2014 extraterritorial jurisdiction\nThe trial court correctly dismissed criminal charges of operating an adult business within 1,000 feet of a residence in violation of a county ordinance where the business was outside the city limits but within the City\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction and it was not clear whether the county ordinance applied outside Jacksonville\u2019s city limits or outside Jacksonville\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Where the language of an ordinance is ambiguous, it must be strictly construed.\nJudge Lewis dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order filed 27 February 1998 by Judge Russell J. Lanier, Jr. in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 February 1999.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Jill Ledford Cheek, for the State.\nLanier & Fountain, by Keith E. Fountain, for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0047-01", "first_page_order": 77, "last_page_order": 82 }