{
  "id": 8959035,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH LEE JAMERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jamerson",
  "decision_date": "2003-12-02",
  "docket_number": "No. COA02-1682",
  "first_page": "527",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 527"
    }
  ],
  "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": "431 S.E.2d 503",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding a defendant who pled guilty may not appeal asserting his indictment was facially invalid, rather his remedy lies with a motion for appropriate relief"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.C. App. 837",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526605
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding a defendant who pled guilty may not appeal asserting his indictment was facially invalid, rather his remedy lies with a motion for appropriate relief"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/110/0837-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 S.E.2d 545",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11918359
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 S.E.2d 848",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "849"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2553543
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "265"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "564 S.E.2d 640",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N.C. App. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9079619
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/151/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "574 S.E.2d 692",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N.C. App. 773",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9252162
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/155/0773-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "568 S.E.2d 867",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "869"
        },
        {
          "page": "870"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9248676
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "72"
        },
        {
          "page": "73-74"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/153/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 352,
    "char_count": 7228,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.634141976854748e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9620979833187185
    },
    "sha256": "cf990c76c4cb39a5f330678f047ff11feafe53ff63e70fcdad0d829a6e5fcce5",
    "simhash": "1:a3efa3d0567a8dc4",
    "word_count": 1161
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:07.642184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH LEE JAMERSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nKeith Lee Jamerson (\u201cdefendant\u201d) pled guilty to possession of cocaine and to attaining the status of habitual felon. Defendant appeals asserting the sentence of 80 to 105 months imprisonment violated his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant also asserts the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the habitual felon indictment on the ground that \u201cN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6 provides that to be indicted as an Habitual Felon a defendant must \u2018commit a felony\u2019 \u201d and possession of cocaine is a misdemeanor.\nThe preliminary issue is whether this Court has the authority to hear defendant\u2019s appeal. \u201cIn North Carolina, a defendant\u2019s right to appeal in a criminal proceeding is purely a creation of state statute. Furthermore, there is no federal constitutional right obligating courts to hear appeals in criminal proceedings.\u201d State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 72, 568 S.E.2d 867, 869 (2002).\nA defendant who pleads guilty has a right of appeal limited to the following:\n1. Whether the sentence \u201cis supported by the evidence.\u201d This issue is appealable only if his minimum term of imprisonment does not fall within the presumptive range. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(al) (2001);\n2. Whether the sentence \u201c[r]esults from an incorrect finding of the defendant\u2019s prior record level under G.S. 15A-1340.14 or the defendant\u2019s prior conviction level under G.S. 15A-1340.21.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(a2)(l) (2001);\n3. Whether the sentence \u201c[c]ontains a type of sentence disposition that is not authorized by G.S. 15A-1340.17 or G.S. 15A-1340.23 for the defendant\u2019s class of offense and prior record or conviction level.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(a2)(2) (2001);\n4. Whether the sentence \u201c[c]ontains a term of imprisonment that is for a duration not authorized by G.S. 15A-1340.17 or G.S. 15A-1340.23 for the defendant\u2019s class of offense and prior record or conviction level.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(a2)(3) (2001);\n5. Whether the trial court improperly denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-979(b) (2001), 15A-1444(e) (2001);\n6. Whether the trial court improperly denied defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(e).\nDefendant\u2019s assertions on appeal, that his sentence violates his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the habitual felon indictment was improper because the substantive crime to which it attached was a misdemeanor not a felony, are not issues for which defendant has an appeal of right. Neither argument is presented in conjunction with the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea or a motion to suppress evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-1444(e), 15A-979(b). Additionally, neither challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(al). Finally, defendant does not assert the trial court improperly applied the following sentencing statutes: N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-1340.14, 15A-1340.17,15A-1340.21,15A-1340.23. Therefore, defendant does not have an appeal of right to this Court.\nWhere a defendant does not have an appeal of right, our statute provides for defendant to seek appellate review by a petition for writ of certiorari. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(e). However, our appellate rules limit our ability to grant petitions for writ of certiorari to the following situations: (1) defendant lost his right to appeal by failing to take timely action; (2) the appeal is interlocutory; or (3) to review a trial court\u2019s denial of a motion for appropriate relief. N.C.R. App. R 21(a)(1) (2003). In considering appellate Rule 21 and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444, this Court has reasoned that since the appellate rules prevail over conflicting statutes, we are without authority to issue a writ of certiorari except as provided in Rule 21. State v. Nance, 155 N.C. App. 773, 574 S.E.2d 692 (2003); Pimental, 153 N.C. App. at 73-74, 568 S.E.2d at 870; State v. Dickson, 151 N.C. App. 136, 564 S.E.2d 640 (2002). Accordingly, we are without authority to review either by right or by certiorari the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the habitual felon indictment or defendant\u2019s assertion the judgment violates his constitutional rights.\nWithout an appeal of right or the authority to grant certiorari, this Court may not consider the arguments asserted by defendant. Although defendant\u2019s assertion that the habitual felon indictment was improperly attached to a misdemeanor is of jurisdictional concern, our Supreme Court has explained that \u201c[w]hile it is true that a defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a trial court, such challenge may be made in the appellate division only if and when the case is properly pending before the appellate division.\u201d State v. Absher, 329 N.C. 264, 265 & n.1, 404 S.E.2d 848, 849 & n.1 (1991). Moreover, the Court held defendant\u2019s purported appeal must be dismissed. Id., 329 N.C. at 265, 404 S.E.2d at 849. Accordingly, we must dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal.\nHowever, we note, defendant is not without relief. Defendant may seek post-trial relief through a motion for appropriate relief. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1411 thru -1422. Such relief must be sought in the trial court, under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1413, since the appellate courts may rule on such a motion under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1418 only when the defendant has either an appeal of right or a properly pending petition for a writ of certiorari. State v. Waters, 122 N.C. App. 504, 470 S.E.2d 545 (1996). See State v. Hawkins, 110 N.C. App. 837, 431 S.E.2d 503 (1993) (holding a defendant who pled guilty may not appeal asserting his indictment was facially invalid, rather his remedy lies with a motion for appropriate relief). Accordingly, we dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal without prejudice to defendant\u2019s right to file a motion for appropriate relief.\nDismissed.\nJudges McGEE and HUDSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.",
      "Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH LEE JAMERSON\nNo. COA02-1682\n(Filed 2 December 2003)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 guilty plea \u2014 habitual felon indictment\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from his sentence for possession of cocaine after a guilty plea and from the habitual felon indictment, allegedly being attached to a misdemeanor instead of a felony, is dismissed without prejudice to his right to file a motion for appropriate relief under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1413, because: (1) defendant does not have a right of appeal when neither argument is presented in conjunction with the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea or a motion to suppress evidence as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-1444(e) and 15A-979(b); (2) neither challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1444(al); (3) defendant did not assert the trial court improperly applied the sentencing statutes under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-1340.14, 15A-1340.17, 15A-1340.21, or 15A-1340.23; and (4) the Court of Appeals is without authority to issue a writ of certiorari.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 August 2002 by Judge James M. Webb in Moore County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 October 2003.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.\nBruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0527-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 560
}