{ "id": 8412436, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL DUNCAN CARTER, JR., Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carter", "decision_date": "2004-12-21", "docket_number": "No. COA03-1353", "first_page": "582", "last_page": "588", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "167 N.C. App. 582" } ], "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": "577 S.E.2d 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705", "parenthetical": "after holding that N.C.R. App. P. 10(b) does not apply to errors in sentencing, court arrested judgment as to possession charge and remanded for a new sentencing hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N.C. App. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9185131 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92", "parenthetical": "after holding that N.C.R. App. P. 10(b) does not apply to errors in sentencing, court arrested judgment as to possession charge and remanded for a new sentencing hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/157/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "586 S.E.2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522-23", "parenthetical": "although defendant did not raise the issue on appeal, the Court, exercising discretion under N.C.R. App. R 2, ordered judgment arrested as to possession and remanded for resentencing on larceny conviction" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 N.C. App. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8956874 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498-99", "parenthetical": "although defendant did not raise the issue on appeal, the Court, exercising discretion under N.C.R. App. R 2, ordered judgment arrested as to possession and remanded for resentencing on larceny conviction" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/160/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "506 S.E.2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11198507 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "570 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" }, { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9250668 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "511" }, { "page": "511" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2986601 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "588 S.E.2d 5", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[S]ince defendant has an appeal of his motion to suppress properly pending, this Court could address the jurisdictional defect on its own motion for appropriate relief.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8955236 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[S]ince defendant has an appeal of his motion to suppress properly pending, this Court could address the jurisdictional defect on its own motion for appropriate relief.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "437 S.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715", "parenthetical": "allowing petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the trial court's acceptance of his guilty pleas; also reversing sentence under Perry" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. App. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520656 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76", "parenthetical": "allowing petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the trial court's acceptance of his guilty pleas; also reversing sentence under Perry" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/113/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 S.E.2d 459", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "462" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4728334 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602-03" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8916197 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "588 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "546-47" }, { "page": "547", "parenthetical": "noting that appellate courts may rule on a motion for appropriate relief \"only when the defendant has either an appeal of right or a properly pending petition for writ of certiorari\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959035 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "528-29" }, { "page": "530" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511334, 1511565, 1511597, 1511471, 1511486 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0442-01", "/nc/356/0442-02", "/nc/356/0442-05", "/nc/356/0442-04", "/nc/356/0442-03" ] }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 867", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "869" }, { "page": "872", "parenthetical": "when defendant did not fail to take timely action, is not attempting to appeal from an interlocutory order, and is not seeking review of a denial of a motion for appropriate relief, \"this Court does not have the authority to issue a writ of certiorari\"" } ], "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": "77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "817" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567315 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236-37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "564 S.E.2d 640", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9079619 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1, "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": 1 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 773", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9252162 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0773-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 S.E.2d 459", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "462" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4728334 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "601-02" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8916197 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "588 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959035 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511334, 1511565, 1511597, 1511471, 1511486 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0442-01", "/nc/356/0442-02", "/nc/356/0442-05", "/nc/356/0442-04", "/nc/356/0442-03" ] }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 867", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9248676 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567315 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0225-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 633, "char_count": 13945, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.481081157639689e-07, "percentile": 0.8075150327297074 }, "sha256": "13a5b910b1d5c82739d416908ff2d2bc673499dc23a01c7dafa91b4729acadb9", "simhash": "1:6b69176e549e3c52", "word_count": 2318 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:28.670431+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge HUDSON concurs.", "Judge THORNBURG concurs in result only." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL DUNCAN CARTER, JR., Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GEER, Judge.\nOn appeal, defendant Carl Duncan Carter, Jr. contends, citing State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 287 S.E.2d 810 (1982), that the trial court should not have imposed sentences for both felony larceny of property and possession of that stolen property. We agree and, therefore, arrest judgment on the charge of possession of stolen goods or property. We otherwise affirm.\nDefendant was charged in a single indictment with (1) breaking and/or entering a residence with the intent of committing felony larceny, (2) felony larceny of personal property valued at $1035.00, and (3) possession of stolen goods or property. Defendant pled guilty to all three counts in Rowan County District Court. At the hearing on defendant\u2019s guilty plea, the prosecutor offered the following unsworn summary by a lieutenant deputy as the factual basis for the charges:\nLIEUTENANT DEPUTY: Your Honor, we were called out to the residence the 23rd day of May, about 10:00 p.m. On our arrival to that residence, we talked to another co-defendant, which was Avery Bradley. He took us to the residence where all the stolen goods were at. All the stolen goods were recovered, all but one .22 calibre [sic] handgun. Arrested him at the time \u2014 which we\u2019ve already done him; he\u2019s gone \u2014 and he give me the names of everybody else that was involved.\nMr. Carter was confronted by the homeowners the last time they made entry to the residence. He took off on foot. After everybody cleared the scene, Mr. Carter and the female suspect had come back to the residence. They called, we come out there, they met us out there, we took Mr. Carter into custody and he wrote me, basically, a written statement, confessing that he had been in the residence and helped them take the items and store them over at the next-door-neighbor\u2019s house, next door to where the property was recovered.\nThe trial judge accepted defendant\u2019s plea and proceeded with sentencing. He found that defendant had 17 prior record points and, as a result, had a prior record level of V (five). He consolidated the charges of breaking and/or entering and felony larceny and imposed a sentence of 12 to 15 months. He then imposed a consecutive sentence of 12 to 15 months on the possession of stolen goods or property charge. Immediately after sentencing, defendant gave oral notice of appeal.\nDefendant has made two assignments of error: (1) that the trial court failed to properly determine that defendant\u2019s guilty plea was made voluntarily, intelligently, and understanding^ and (2) that the trial court, by sentencing him for both larceny of property and possession of that stolen property, violated Perry. The preliminary issue is whether this Court has the authority to hear defendant\u2019s appeal given that he entered a plea of guilty.\n\u201cIn North Carolina, a defendant\u2019s right to appeal in a criminal proceeding is purely a creation of state statute.\u201d State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 72, 568 S.E.2d 867, 869, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444 (2003), a defendant who has pled guilty has only the right to appeal the following issues: (1) whether the sentence is supported by the evidence (if the minimum term of imprisonment does not fall within the presumptive range); (2) whether the sentence results from an incorrect finding of the defendant\u2019s prior record level under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14 or the defendant\u2019s prior conviction level under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.21; (3) whether the sentence constitutes a type of sentence not authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.17 or \u00a7 15A-1340.23 for the defendant\u2019s class of offense and prior record or conviction level; (4) whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress; and (5) whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. State v. Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. 527, 528-29, 588 S.E.2d 545, 546-47 (2003). Defendant\u2019s appeal in this case does not fall within any of these categories.\nRecognizing this fact, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari on 8 December 2003. The State contends that this Court, under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, does not have authority to review defendant\u2019s arguments pursuant to a grant of certiorari. See Pimental, 153 N.C. App. at 77, 568 S.E.2d at 872 (when defendant did not fail to take timely action, is not attempting to appeal from an interlocutory order, and is not seeking review of a denial of a motion for appropriate relief, \u201cthis Court does not have the authority to issue a writ of certiorari\u201d). This Court, however, held in State v. Rhodes, 163 N.C. App. 191, 193, 592 S.E.2d 731, 732 (2004), following State v. Bolinger, 320 N.C. 596, 602-03, 359 S.E.2d 459, 462 (1987), that a defendant may petition for writ of certiorari when he is challenging the procedures employed in accepting a guilty plea. Defendant is, therefore, entitled to petition for writ of certiorari for review of his first assignment of error. In our discretion, we allow defendant\u2019s petition to the extent that it seeks review of defendant\u2019s first assignment of error. See also State v. Barnett, 113 N.C. App. 69, 76, 437 S.E.2d 711, 715 (1993) (allowing petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the trial court\u2019s acceptance of his guilty pleas; also reversing sentence under Perry).\nWith respect to defendant\u2019s second assignment of error, since a petition for writ of certiorari is properly pending before this Court, we may consider defendant\u2019s arguments through a motion for appropriate relief. Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. at 530, 588 S.E.2d at 547 (noting that appellate courts may rule on a motion for appropriate relief \u201conly when the defendant has either an appeal of right or a properly pending petition for writ of certiorari\u201d). Although defendant has not filed a motion for appropriate relief with this Court, we may treat his petition for writ of certiorari as such a motion or we may grant the relief on our own motion. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1420(d) (2003) (\u201cAt any time that a defendant would be entitled to relief by motion for appropriate relief, the court may grant such relief upon its own motion.\u201d). See also State v. Jones, 161 N.C. App. 60, 64 n.1, 588 S.E.2d 5, 9 n.1 (2003) (\u201c[S]ince defendant has an appeal of his motion to suppress properly pending, this Court could address the jurisdictional defect on its own motion for appropriate relief.\u201d), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 358 N.C. 473, 598 S.E.2d 125 (2004). We choose to address defendant\u2019s second assignment of error upon our own motion for appropriate relief.\nAs for defendant\u2019s challenge to the procedures in accepting his guilty plea, a court may accept a guilty plea only if it is made knowingly and voluntarily. State v. Russell, 153 N.C. App. 508, 511, 570 S.E.2d 245, 248 (2002). Here, the trial court conducted the inquiry set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1022 (2003), and defendant subsequently signed a transcript of plea under oath, stating that he was entering into the plea of his own free will, fully understanding what he was doing. This Court has previously held that \u201cif the defendant signed a Transcript of Plea and the record reveals the trial court made \u2018a careful inquiry\u2019 of the defendant, it is sufficient to show the defendant\u2019s plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, with full awareness of the direct consequences.\u201d Russell, 153 N.C. App. at 511, 570 S.E.2d at 248 (quoting State v. Wilkins, 131 N.C. App. 220, 224, 506 S.E.2d 274, 277 (1998)). Defendant points to a single portion of the transcript as suggesting that defendant \u201chad trouble following the judge\u2019s inquiries.\u201d The transcript, however, reveals only a brief misunderstanding and contains no further indication of any lack of comprehension by defendant. We, therefore, affirm the trial court\u2019s acceptance of the guilty plea.\nAs for defendant\u2019s second assignment of error, the trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive sentences: (1) 12 to 15 months for the consolidated charges of breaking and/or entering and felony larceny; and (2) 12 to 15 months for possession of stolen property. State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 236-37, 287 S.E.2d 810, 817 (1982) precludes this double sentence: \u201c[W]e hold that, though a defendant may be indicted and tried on charges of larceny, receiving, and possession of the same property, he may be convicted of only one of those offenses.\u201d See also State v. Owens, 160 N.C. App. 494, 498-99, 586 S.E.2d 519, 522-23 (2003) (although defendant did not raise the issue on appeal, the Court, exercising discretion under N.C.R. App. R 2, ordered judgment arrested as to possession and remanded for resentencing on larceny conviction); State v. Hargett, 157 N.C. App. 90, 92, 577 S.E.2d 703, 705 (2003) (after holding that N.C.R. App. P. 10(b) does not apply to errors in sentencing, court arrested judgment as to possession charge and remanded for a new sentencing hearing).\nBased on Perry, we arrest judgment on the charge of possession of stolen goods or property. Because that charge was not consolidated with any others, there is no need to remand for resentencing.\nNo. 03 CR 54017, Count 1, Breaking and or Entering \u2014 Affirmed.\nNo. 03 CR 54017, Count 2, Felony Larceny \u2014 Affirmed.\nNo. 03 CR 54017, Count 3, Possession of Stolen Goods/Property\u2014 Judgment arrested.\nJudge HUDSON concurs.\nJudge THORNBURG concurs in result only.", "type": "majority", "author": "GEER, Judge." }, { "text": "THORNBURG, Judge,\nconcurring in the result only.\nAlthough I concur in the result ultimately reached by the majority, I cannot agree with the majority\u2019s reasoning for granting defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari. Defendant\u2019s appeal is not based on any of the six errors for which N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444 allows an appeal as a matter of right to defendants who plead guilty. Nor does defendant\u2019s appeal, or petition for writ of certiorari, fall into one of the three situations in which we are allowed to grant certiorari under N.C. R. App. P. 21. In the vast majority of cases with similar facts, this Court has refused to grant a writ of certiorari and dismissed the appeal. See State v. Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. 527, 588 S.E.2d 545 (2003); State v. Nance, 155 N.C. App. 773, 574 S.E.2d 692 (2003); State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 568 S.E.2d 867, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002); State v. Dickson, 151 N.C. App. 136, 564 S.E.2d 640 (2002).\nHere, the majority relies on State v. Rhodes, 163 N.C. App. 191, 592 S.E.2d 731 (2004), for authority to grant a writ of certiorari to address defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court failed to properly determine whether defendant\u2019s guilty plea was made voluntarily, intelligently and understandingly. In Rhodes, this Court relied upon the Official Commentary to Article 58, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1021 et seq. (2003), and State v. Bolinger, 320 N.C. 596, 359 S.E.2d 459 (1987), to conclude that defendants may petition this Court for review pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari during the appeal period to claim that the procedural requirements of Article 58 were violated. Rhodes, 163 N.C. App. at 194, 592 S.E.2d at 733. However, the Supreme Court in Bolinger did not address the applicability of N.C. R. App. R 21. The Court, after concluding that the defendant was not entitled as a matter of right to appellate review of his contention that the trial court improperly accepted his plea and that the defendant failed to petition the Court for. a writ of certiorari, stated: \u201cNeither party to this appeal appears to have recognized the limited bases for appellate review of judgments entered upon pleas of guilty. For this reason we nevertheless choose to review the merits of defendant\u2019s contentions.\u201d Bolinger, 320 N.C. at 601-02, 359 S.E.2d at 462. Thus, it does not appear that the Court in Bolinger intended to sanction a general exception to our appellate rules.\nHowever, I agree with the majority that the acceptance of defendant\u2019s guilty plea was without error and that defendant was sentenced in violation of State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 287 S.E.2d 810 (1982). As defendant was clearly sentenced in violation of Perry, I believe it would be an appropriate exercise of this Court\u2019s discretion under N.C. R. App. P. 2 to suspend the appellate rules and grant defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari in order to review the sentencing issue. Thus, I concur in the result only.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "THORNBURG, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel R O\u2019Brien, for the State.", "Leslie C. Rawls, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL DUNCAN CARTER, JR., Defendant\nNo. COA03-1353\n(Filed 21 December 2004)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 certiorari\u2014motion for appropriate relief\nThe appeal of a defendant who had pled guilty was heard in the Court of Appeals even though it did not fall within the statutory categories for appeals after pleading guilty where defendant filed a petition for certiorari; certiorari was granted on the first assignment of error (whether the plea was voluntary), as may be done when a defendant challenges the procedure employed in accepting a guilty plea; and the second assignment of error (sentencing for both larceny and possession of the stolen property) was heard on the court\u2019s own motion for appropriate relief since the petition for certiorari was properly pending.\n2. Criminal Law\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 knowing and voluntary\nA guilty plea was knowing and voluntary where the transcript revealed a brief misunderstanding but no further indication of any lack of comprehension by defendant.\n3. Sentencing\u2014 breaking and entering and possession of stolen property \u2014 double sentence\nThe trial court erred by sentencing defendant for both breaking and entering and for possession of stolen property.\nJudge Thornburg concurring in the result only.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 June 2003 by Judge Kevin Eddinger in Rowan County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 2004.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel R O\u2019Brien, for the State.\nLeslie C. Rawls, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0582-01", "first_page_order": 612, "last_page_order": 618 }