{
  "id": 11093466,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARCADIA LOGAN JENKINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jenkins",
  "decision_date": "2000-04-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA99-518",
  "first_page": "367",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "137 N.C. App. 367"
    }
  ],
  "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": "509 S.E.2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "778"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        131926
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 U.S. 230",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6214098
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "242"
        },
        {
          "page": "279"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/486/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "508 S.E.2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 10,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "285"
        },
        {
          "page": "286"
        },
        {
          "page": "285-86"
        },
        {
          "page": "286"
        },
        {
          "page": "287"
        },
        {
          "page": "289",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "286"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571662
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "498"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 464,
    "char_count": 9770,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2274598939355577e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7786100656833661
    },
    "sha256": "b30abc4a0c32ffce6bd5a6a6dc75b59a1a214c065b3cd2ec545177d8568def60",
    "simhash": "1:1353bdb4af961dd7",
    "word_count": 1572
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:18.277293+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARCADIA LOGAN JENKINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nThe State appeals the 6 January 2000 order of the trial court dismissing female assault charges against the defendant. Defendant was arrested in the early morning of 8 May 1998 for allegedly assaulting a female, Ellen Jenkins. After defendant\u2019s arrest, he was received at the detention facility at 6:15 a.m. The magistrate ordered the defendant to be held without bond because of \u201cdomestic violence,\u201d and set the case for bond hearing in district court at 1:30 p.m. If defendant had not appeared before a district court judge by 6:30 a.m. on 10 May 1998, defendant was to be brought back before the magistrate for a determination of the terms of defendant\u2019s release.\nDefendant appeared before the district court judge at approximately 1:30 p.m. on 8 May 1998 and was released after a $500.00 unsecured bond was set. On 8 September 1998, defendant was indicted for habitual misdemeanor assault under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33.2 (1999), based upon five prior misdemeanor convictions, four of which were assault on a female.\nIn superior court,- the defendant moved to dismiss the pending charges based on violations of his federal and state procedural due process rights to a timely pre-trial release hearing, which the trial court granted.\nThe State argues that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant\u2019s procedural due process rights were violated by the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-534.1 (1999), which states in part:\nA defendant may be retained in custody not more than 48 hours from the time of arrest without a determination being made under this section by a judge. If a judge has not acted pursuant to this section within 48 hours of arrest, the magistrate shall act under the provisions of this section.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) (1999).\nOur Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of section 15A-534.1 in State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 508 S.E.2d 277 (1998). In Thompson, the defendant was charged with three misdemeanors, including assault inflicting serious injury, which was a domestic violence charge. The defendant was arrested on Saturday, 28 October 1995, and the magistrate\u2019s order of commitment did not authorize defendant\u2019s release from jail for a bond hearing until forty-eight hours later, which defendant received the following Monday afternoon. Id. at 497, 508 S.E.2d at 285. In Thompson, our Supreme Court took judicial notice that two district court judges and two superior court judges were available during morning sessions of court on Monday, 30 October 1995. Id. at 498, 508 S.E.2d at 286. The Court emphasized that \u201cdefendant was not brought before a judge upon the opening of court on Monday morning. He, instead, remained in jail until Monday afternoon, almost forty-eight hours after his arrest.\u201d Id. at 497, 508 S.E.2d at 285-86.\nThe Court denied defendant\u2019s argument that section 15A-534.1 was facially unconstitutional, but held that section 15A-534.1 was applied unconstitutionally and violated defendant\u2019s rights to a timely pre-trial release hearing. Id. at 498, 508 S.E.2d at 286. The Court held:\nUnder these discrete facts, we agree with defendant that the magistrate\u2019s order automatically detaining him without a hearing until well into the afternoon, while available judges spent several hours conducting other business, violated his procedural due process rights to a timely pretrial-release hearing under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-534.1(a).\nThe Court weighed the importance of the private interests affected, the harm inflicted by any delay, \u201cthe justification offered by the Government for delay and its relation to the underlying governmental interest; and the likelihood that the interim decision may have been mistaken.\u201d Id. at 499, 508 S.E.2d at 287 (quoting FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 242, 100 L. Ed. 2d 265, 279 (1988)). Under this analysis, the Court concluded that \u201c[b]ecause defendant did not obtain his hearing before a judge regarding his bail and conditions of release \u2018as soon as [was] reasonably feasible,\u2019.. . defendant was detained longer than necessary to serve the State\u2019s interest in having a judge, rather than a magistrate, determine the conditions of his pretrial release.\u201d Id. at 502-03, 508 S.E.2d at 289 (citations omitted).\nId. Further, the Court stated that \u201cresolution of whether the statutory procedures as implemented here are constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of the particular circumstances of the case.\u201d Id.\nOur Supreme Court recently revisited this issue in State v. Malette, 350 N.C. 52, 509 S.E.2d 776 (1999). Malette was heard in the Supreme Court on the same day as Thompson, 14 October 1998, but was not filed until 5 February 1999, almost a month after the trial court dismissed the charges in the present case. In Malette, the Court held that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-534.1 was applied constitutionally to a defendant who was arrested on 3 December 1995 and did not receive a bond hearing until some time the next day. Id. at 55, 509 S.E.2d at 778. The Court, under a case-by-case analysis, reasoned that \u201c[t]here is no evidence here that the magistrate arbitrarily set a forty-eight-hour limit as in Thompson or that the State did not move expeditiously in bringing defendant before a judge.\u201d Id.\nHere, defendant argues that his procedural due process rights were violated since there was a session of district court at approximately 9:30 a.m., but his bond hearing was delayed until 1:30 p.m. that afternoon.\nThe trial court agreed and in its order stated in part:\n(5) Defendant contends that there were sessions of District Court being conducted on the morning \u2014 on Friday morning which convened at approximately 9:30. The defendant was not brought before a judge during the morning session.\n(7) The Court. . . finds that it is the common practice to schedule bond hearings in Gaston County at 1:30 p.m. for defendants held in detention, obviously for the purpose of scheduling of District Court cases in a rational and sufficient manner given the nature and volume of the District Court. It is also necessary for the papers regarding the defendant\u2019s arrest and detention to be filed in the Clerk of Court\u2019s office for the effect of having the matter docketed so that a judicial official authorized under G.S. 15A-534.1 may conduct a hearing.\n(8) The defendant was held from 6:15 until sometime in the afternoon of May 8th without benefit of bond pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-534.1. According to the case of State of North Carolina vs. Ronnie Thompson, the defendant in that case was held approximately two hours and fifteen minutes longer than the defendant, Mr. Jenkins, in this case when a judge was purportedly available.\nThe trial court concluded that pursuant to Thompson, the \u201cfailure to provide defendant with a bond hearing at the first opportunity when a judge was available is . . . constitutionally impermissible.\u201d\nHere, defendant was arrested in the early morning of 8 May 1998 and was received into the detention facility at 6:15 a.m. At approximately 6:30 a.m., the magistrate\u2019s release order set defendant\u2019s bond hearing for 1:30 p.m. that afternoon. Defendant\u2019s hearing was held at approximately 1:30 p.m. and the defendant was released upon signing an unsecured bond. The trial court found that the usual practice of the district court was to convene at 9:30 a.m. on Friday morning. Also, bond hearings are usually set for 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of \u201cscheduling ... District Court cases in a rational and sufficient manner given the nature and volume of District Court\u201d and because of the need to file papers with the Clerk of Court so that the matter may be set for a hearing under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-534.1.\nAlthough defendant was detained for approximately seven hours, we find his bond hearing occurred in a reasonably feasible time and promoted the efficient administration of the court system. In weighing the defendant\u2019s private interests and the harm caused by the delay against the governmental interest of processing defendants in a rational, efficient manner, we conclude that, under these facts, defendant\u2019s constitutional rights were not violated. Therefore, under the \u201cflexible demands of procedural due process,\u201d Thompson, 349 N.C. at 498, 508 S.E.2d at 286, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-534.1 was applied constitutionally to this defendant, and we reverse the trial court\u2019s order dismissing the charges against defendant.\nReversed.\nJudges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General William, P. Hart and Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARCADIA LOGAN JENKINS\nNo. COA99-518\n(Filed 4 April 2000)\nBail and Pretrial Release\u2014 domestic violence \u2014 pretrial release hearing \u2014 reasonable time \u2014 procedural due process\nThe trial court erred in dismissing the assault on a female charge, based on its conclusion that defendant\u2019s procedural due process rights were violated by application of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1 regarding a timely pretrial release hearing in a domestic violence case when there was a session of court at 9:30 a.m. and defendant\u2019s bond hearing was delayed until 1:30 p.m., because the facts of this case reveal: (1) the trial court\u2019s usual practice was to hold bond hearings at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of scheduling cases in a rational and sufficient manner given the nature and volume of cases in district court; and (2) defendant\u2019s bond hearing occurred in a reasonably feasible time and promoted the efficient administration of the court system.\nAppeal by the State from order entered 6 January 2000 by Judge Timothy S. Kincaid in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 February 2000.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General William, P. Hart and Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0367-01",
  "first_page_order": 399,
  "last_page_order": 403
}