{ "id": 8301186, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY STARKEY, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Starkey", "decision_date": "2006-04-18", "docket_number": "No. COA05-1013", "first_page": "264", "last_page": "269", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "177 N.C. App. 264" } ], "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": "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", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "872" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9248676 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 S.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18-19", "parenthetical": "holding N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444 governs \"regularly taken\" criminal appeals by defendants" }, { "page": "18-19" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523158 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "489", "parenthetical": "holding N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444 governs \"regularly taken\" criminal appeals by defendants" }, { "page": "489" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S.E.2d 784", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "791", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570356 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "669", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "No. 03-454" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "No. 03-454" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "615 S.E.2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633238 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/615/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "599 S.E.2d 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631476 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52-53" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/599/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3796256 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "429", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 64", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491751, 491819, 491660, 491761, 491793, 491827 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0167-06", "/nc/357/0167-03", "/nc/357/0167-05", "/nc/357/0167-04", "/nc/357/0167-02", "/nc/357/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 417", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "156 N.C. App. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9191875 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638-39" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/156/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "586 S.E.2d 266", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491776, 491745, 491559, 491849, 491402, 491916, 491570, 491862, 491832, 491865 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0463-03", "/nc/357/0463-01", "/nc/357/0463-02", "/nc/357/0463-07", "/nc/357/0463-05", "/nc/357/0463-04", "/nc/357/0463-09", "/nc/357/0463-08", "/nc/357/0463-10", "/nc/357/0463-06" ] }, { "cite": "580 S.E.2d 40", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45-46" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. App. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9186055 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95-96" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/158/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 L. Ed. 2d 748", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "544 U.S. 988", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5887771, 5880033, 5922913, 5889696, 5876741, 5875467, 5907438, 5865679, 5904175, 5904754, 5877907, 5916375, 5922235, 5908191 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/544/0988-13", "/us/544/0988-01", "/us/544/0988-09", "/us/544/0988-10", "/us/544/0988-04", "/us/544/0988-12", "/us/544/0988-06", "/us/544/0988-14", "/us/544/0988-07", "/us/544/0988-08", "/us/544/0988-03", "/us/544/0988-11", "/us/544/0988-05", "/us/544/0988-02" ] }, { "cite": "608 S.E.2d 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3800192, 3796582, 3802248, 3803629, 3800433, 3796312, 3799355, 3794559 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0195-04", "/nc/359/0195-06", "/nc/359/0195-01", "/nc/359/0195-02", "/nc/359/0195-03", "/nc/359/0195-08", "/nc/359/0195-05", "/nc/359/0195-07" ] }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8996538 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241-42" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 S.E.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253-55" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4721300 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117-19" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0110-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 509, "char_count": 10897, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2262032462564715e-07, "percentile": 0.6046263701088365 }, "sha256": "bf150c4f28ec9338ff0ab8ea46aed1fe84fdd92eab700068306a129463cb81fd", "simhash": "1:2b4bc424c63fa06c", "word_count": 1812 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:29.259677+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge HUDSON concurs.", "Judge HUNTER concurs in a separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY STARKEY, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nThe State appeals from an order entered 3 February 2005, granting the trial court\u2019s own motion for appropriate relief, vacating Michael Anthony Starkey\u2019s (defendant) sentence for having attained the status of an habitual felon and sentencing defendant to a term of eight to ten months imprisonment. For the reasons below we dismiss this appeal and deny the State\u2019s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.\nFacts and Procedural History\nOn 13 September 2001, police officers stopped defendant at a driver\u2019s license checkpoint in Kinston, North Carolina. Defendant was subsequently arrested for driving while impaired and driving with a revoked license. During a search of defendant\u2019s car officers found marijuana in a balled-up piece of paper and a small plastic bag containing what was later determined to be cocaine. The plastic bag contained 0.1 grams (0.004 ounces) of cocaine, the smallest amount the laboratory at the State Bureau of Investigation can weigh.\nOn 25 February 2002, defendant was indicted by the Lenoir County Grand Jury for the felony offense of possession of cocaine and for having attained the status of an habitual felon. On 16 July 2002, after a trial before a jury, defendant was found to be guilty of possession of cocaine and of having attained the status of an habitual felon. Defendant was found to have three non-overlapping prior felony convictions: felonious forgery on 29 January 1992; felonious possession of stolen goods on 1 August 1992; and felonious larceny on 18 April 1995. All three are Class H felonies. In a judgment entered consistent with the jury verdicts, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 100 to 129 months imprisonment. On 18 May 2004, for reasons not related to the appeal, this Court reversed defendant\u2019s convictions. State v. Starkey, 164 N.C. App. 414, 595 S.E.2d 815 (2004) (No. 03-454) (unpublished).\nDefendant was retried at the 24 January 2005 Criminal Session of Lenoir County Superior Court before the Honorable Ernest B. Fullwood. On 27 January 2005, a jury found defendant guilty of one count of possession of cocaine and of having attained the status of an habitual felon. The trial court subsequently found that, as an habitual felon, defendant had five prior record points and a prior record level of III. On 3 February 2005, the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury verdicts, sentencing defendant to a term of seventy to ninety-three months imprisonment.\nImmediately after entering judgment on that sentence, the trial court, sua sponte, entered an order granting its own motion for appropriate relief. The trial court found that defendant\u2019s sentence as an habitual felon was grossly disproportionate in light of the mitigating factors found at sentencing and the crime committed, and was in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court vacated defendant\u2019s sentence as an habitual felon, found defendant had eleven prior record points and a prior record level of IV, and sentenced defendant to a term of eight to ten months imprisonment.\nThe State appeals the order granting the trial court\u2019s motion for appropriate relief. The State has also filed with this Court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the State\u2019s appeal and a response to the State\u2019s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.\nThe dispositive issues before this Court are: (I) whether the State has a right to appeal from the entry of the order granting the trial court\u2019s motion for appropriate relief; and (II) whether this Court may grant the State\u2019s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.\nAppeal from a Motion for Appropriate Relief\nOur Supreme Court has held that \u201c[tjhe right of the State to appeal in a criminal case is statutory, and statutes authorizing an appeal by the State in criminal cases are strictly construed.\u201d State v. Elkerson, 304 N.C. 658, 669, 285 S.E.2d 784, 791 (1982) (citations omitted). The State argues it has a right to appeal the entry of the trial court\u2019s order granting the court\u2019s Motion for Appropriate Relief pursuant to Sections 15A-1422(b), 15A-1445(a)(1) and (a)(3)(c) of the North Carolina General Statutes.\nAs the State is appealing the entry of an order granting the trial court\u2019s Motion for Appropriate relief and not the judgment entered on the jury verdicts, whether or not the State has a right of appeal to this Court is controlled' by Section 15A-1422 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Pursuant to Section 15A-1422(b), the State seeks review of the trial court\u2019s grant of relief of a Motion for Appropriate Relief in an appeal regularly taken. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1422(b) (2005). Therefore, for this Court to review the trial court\u2019s grant of relief under its Motion for Appropriate Relief, the State must have a right to appeal the underlying judgment in an appeal regularly taken.\nWhether an appeal by the State of criminal judgments is \u201cregularly taken\u201d is governed by Section 15A-1445 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Cf. State v. Howard, 70 N.C. App. 487, 489, 320 S.E.2d 17, 18-19 (1984) (holding N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444 governs \u201cregularly taken\u201d criminal appeals by defendants). Section 15A-1445 states in pertinent part:\n(a) Unless the rule against double jeopardy prohibits further prosecution, the State may appeal from the superior court to the appellate division:\n(1) When there has been a decision or judgment dismissing criminal charges as to one or more counts.\n(3) When the State alleges that the sentence imposed:\nc. Contains 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[.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1445 (2005). The relief granted by the trial court might be considered to have effectively dismissed defendant\u2019s charge of having attained the status of an habitual felon or imposed an unauthorized prison term in light of defendant\u2019s status as an habitual felon. However, it is the underlying judgment and not the order granting this relief from which the State must have the right to take an appeal. Howard, 70 N.C. App. at 489, 320 S.E.2d at 18-19. The State does not argue and we do not find that the underlying judgment dismisses a charge against defendant or that the term of imprisonment imposed was not authorized. The State therefore has no right to appeal from the underlying judgment and this appeal is not one \u201cregularly taken.\u201d This appeal must be dismissed.\nPetition for Writ of Certiorari\nRealizing it may not have a right to. appeal the order of the trial court, the State has also filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court asking us to review the trial court\u2019s order vacating the original sentence. Review by this Court pursuant to a Petition for Writ of Certiorari is governed by Rule 21 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 21, this Court is limited to issuing a writ of certiorari:\n\u201cto permit review of the judgments and orders of trial tribunals when [1] the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action, or [2] when no right of appeal from an interlocutory order exists, or [3] for review pursuant to G.S. 15A-1422(c)(3) of an order of the trial court denying a motion for appropriate relief.\u201d\nState v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 76-77, 568 S.E.2d 867, 872 (quoting N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002). The State recognizes that its petition does not satisfy any of the conditions of Rule 21 and asks this Court to invoke Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and review the trial court\u2019s order. See N.C. R. App. P. 2 (granting this Court the authority to suspend the rules of appellate procedure to prevent manifest injustice to a party). We decline the State\u2019s request to invoke Rule 2 and deny the State\u2019s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.\nAppeal dismissed, Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.\nJudge HUDSON concurs.\nJudge HUNTER concurs in a separate opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." }, { "text": "HUNTER, Judge,\nconcurring.\nI agree with the State that the trial court\u2019s action in granting the motion for appropriate relief directly contradicts settled case law regarding Eighth Amendment challenges to habitual felon sentences and was therefore erroneous. See, e.g., State v. Todd, 313 N.C. 110, 117-19, 326 S.E.2d 249, 253-55 (1985); State v. McDonald, 165 N.C. App. 237, 241-42, 599 S.E.2d 50, 52-53, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 195, 608 S.E.2d 60 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 988, 161 L. Ed. 2d 748 (2005); State v. Clifton, 158 N.C. App. 88, 95-96, 580 S.E.2d 40, 45-46, cert. denied, 357 N.C. 463, 586 S.E.2d 266 (2003); State v. Hensley, 156 N.C. App. 634, 638-39, 577 S.E.2d 417, 421, disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 167, 581 S.E.2d 64 (2003). The majority is correct, however, that the State has no statutory right of appeal to this Court from entry of the order granting the trial court\u2019s motion for appropriate relief, and that certiorari is also unavailable. Thus, this Court is precluded from reviewing the merits of the State\u2019s position. I note, however, that this issue may be subject to review by our Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional authority. See N.C. Const, art. IV, \u00a7 12, cl. 1; State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 429, 615 S.E.2d 256, 259 (2005) (citation omitted) (the Supreme Court may \u201c \u2018exercise its general supervisory authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice\u2019 \u201d).", "type": "concurrence", "author": "HUNTER, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY STARKEY, Defendant\nNo. COA05-1013\n(Filed 18 April 2006)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appe\u00e1lability \u2014 trial court\u2019s own motion for appropriate relief \u2014 writ of certiorari \u2014 habitual felon\nThe State had no right to appeal from an order granting the trial court\u2019s own motion for' appropriate relief vacating defendant\u2019s sentence for having attained the status of an habitual felon and sentencing defendant to a term of eight to ten months\u2019 imprisonment, and the State\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari is denied, because: (1) the State did not have a right to appeal from \u25a0the underlying judgment when it did not dismiss a charge against defendant and the term of imprisonment was not unauthorized, and this appeal is not one regularly taken, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1445; and (2) the State\u2019s petition did not satisfy any of the conditions of N.C. R. App. R 21, and the Court of Appeals declined to invoke N.C. R. App. P. 2.\nJudge Hunter concurring.\nAppeal by the State from an order and judgment entered 3 February 2005 by Judge Ernest B. Fullwood in Lenoir County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 March 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0264-01", "first_page_order": 298, "last_page_order": 303 }