{
  "id": 4164400,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEAN RINEHART",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rinehart",
  "decision_date": "2009-03-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA08-1209",
  "first_page": "774",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. App. 774"
    }
  ],
  "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": "668 S.E.2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12642231
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/668/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "669 S.E.2d 323",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12642300,
        12642301
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Pimental, 153 N.C. App. at 73, 568 S.E.2d at 870"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/669/0323-01",
        "/se2d/669/0323-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "661 S.E.2d 759",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12641156
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "761"
        },
        {
          "page": "761"
        },
        {
          "page": "762"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/661/0759-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 S.E.2d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.C. 671",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659869
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/348/0671-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N.C. App. 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4162364
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/193/0739-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 S.E.2d 287",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "289"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547030
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "55-56"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/34/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "564 S.E.2d 640",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "640"
        },
        {
          "page": "640-41"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N.C. App. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9079619
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "137-38"
        },
        {
          "page": "138"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/151/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 N.C. 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4150210
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Pimental, 153 N.C. App. at 73, 568 S.E.2d at 870"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/362/0672-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4159774
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "3"
        },
        {
          "page": "3"
        },
        {
          "page": "3"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/191/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "588 S.E.2d 545",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "546",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "547"
        },
        {
          "page": "547"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8959035
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "528",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "529"
        },
        {
          "page": "530"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/161/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "568 S.E.2d 867",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "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": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/153/0069-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 7176,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.910444093458357e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4611913667553591
    },
    "sha256": "4f7459eb43c36d79a687371595b16bc36970a9b6e76f41e75caa305cdb6b6406",
    "simhash": "1:a969b168d43a01d4",
    "word_count": 1204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:21.117771+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ELMORE and STEELMAN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEAN RINEHART"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nJean Rinehart (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty to one count of escape from state prison and attaining the status of an habitual felon. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal.\nFacts\nOn 8 December 2005, defendant escaped from the Forsyth Correctional Center where he was serving a sentence for breaking and entering. He was captured on 10 December 2005 in Georgia and charged with escape from state prison and attaining the status of an habitual felon.\nDefendant made pre-trial motions to dismiss based on the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Defendant contended he was subjected to an administrative punishment by the Department of Correction\u2019s imposition of a fine and solitary confinement. Defendant also contended his right to a speedy trial was violated because he had been in the continuous custody of the Forsyth County Sheriff for sixteen months in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-711(a).\nAt the pre-trial hearing on 25 February 2008, the trial court denied both -of defendant\u2019s motions. After the denial of his motions, defendant entered an Alford guilty plea and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions to dismiss. Defendant was sentenced to a minimum of 101 months to a maximum of 131 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nWe first determine whether defendant has a right to appeal the denial of his motions to dismiss. The State, by way of motion, argues defendant\u2019s appeal should be dismissed. We agree.\nA defendant\u2019s right to appeal in North Carolina is purely a creation of statute. See State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 568 S.E.2d 867 (2002). Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444, a defendant who has plead guilty may appeal the following:\n(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.\nState v. Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. 527, 528, 588 S.E.2d 545, 546 (2003) (citation omitted); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444 (a2) (2007). Accordingly, \u201ca defendant who has entered a plea of guilty is not entitled to appellate review as a matter of right, unless the defendant is appealing sentencing issues or the denial of a motion to suppress, or the defendant has made an unsuccessful motion to withdraw the guilty plea.\u201d State v. Corbett, 191 N.C. App. 1, 3, 661 S.E.2d 759, 761 (2008), aff\u2019d per curium, 362 N.C. 672, 669 S.E.2d 323 (2008) (quoting Pimental, 153 N.C. App. at 73, 568 S.E.2d at 870).\nDefendant\u2019s assertions on appeal that his freedom from double jeopardy and his right to a speedy trial were violated are not issues from which defendant has an appeal of right as enumerated by G.S. \u00a7 15A-1444. Therefore, defendant does not have a right of appeal to this Court.\nAlthough defendant has filed a petition for writ of certiorari, this Court is without authority to issue a writ of certiorari. See Corbett, 191 N.C. App. at 3, 661 S.E.2d at 761; Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. at 529, 588 S.E.2d at 547; State v. Dickson, 151 N.C. App. 136, 137-38, 564 S.E.2d 640, 640 (2002).\nAlthough N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(e) permits a defendant to petition for a writ of certiorari, pursuant to N.C. R. App. P 21(a)(1), this Court is limited to issuing a writ of certiorari:\nin appropriate circumstances ... to permit review of the judgments and orders of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action, or when no right of appeal from an interlocutory order exists, or for review pursuant to G.S. 15A-1422(c)(3) of an order of the trial court denying a motion for appropriate relief.\nId. And, where \u201cthe North Carolina General Statutes conflict with Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure will prevail.\u201d Dickson, 151 N.C. App. at 138, 564 S.E.2d at 640-41 (quoting Neasham v. Day, 34 N.C. App. 53, 55-56, 237 S.E.2d 287, 289 (1977)). Because defendant has not failed to take, timely action, is not appealing from an interlocutory order, and is not seeking review pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1422(c)(3), we are without authority to issue a writ of certiorari.\nTherefore, defendant\u2019s appeal must be dismissed. However, dismissal of defendant\u2019s appeal is without prejudice to defendant\u2019s right to file a motion for appropriate relief pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1413 (2007). See Corbett, 191 N.C. App. at 3, 661 S.E.2d at 762; Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. at 530, 588 S.E.2d at 547.\nDismissed.\nJudges ELMORE and STEELMAN concur.\n. We are cognizant of the recent opinion in State v. Smith, 193 N.C. App. 739, 668 S.E.2d 612 (2008), where this Court, relying on State v. Wall, 348 N.C. 671, 502 S.E.2d 585 (1998), vacated a judgment entered upon the defendant\u2019s guilty plea. However, we find Wall distinguishable from the facts of the present case because the State in Wall had, and exercised, its right to appeal from the judgment; in the present case, defendant has no right to appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charles E.. Reece, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel Shatz, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEAN RINEHART\nNo. COA08-1209\n(Filed 17 March 2009)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability\u2014guilty plea\u2014writ of certiorari\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty to one count of escape from state prison and attaining the status of an habitual felon is dismissed without prejudice to defendant\u2019s right to file a motion for appropriate relief under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1413 because: (1) a defendant who has entered a plea of guilty is not entitled to appellate review as a matter of right unless defendant is appealing sentencing issues or the denial of a motion to suppress, or defendant has made an unsuccessful motion to withdraw the guilty plea; (2) defendant\u2019s assertions on appeal that his freedom from double jeopardy and his right to a speedy trial were violated are not issues from which defendant has an appeal of right as enumerated in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1444; and (3) although defendant filed a writ of certiorari, the Court of Appeals was without authority to issue it since defendant failed to take timely action, was not appealing from an interlocutory order, and was not seeking review under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1422(c)(3). '\nAppeal by defendant from judgment dated 25 February 2008 by Judge Edgar B. Gregory in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 February 2009.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charles E.. Reece, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel Shatz, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0774-01",
  "first_page_order": 806,
  "last_page_order": 809
}