{ "id": 3821247, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH LEONARDO SHROPSHIRE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shropshire", "decision_date": "2011-03-15", "docket_number": "No. COA10-1113", "first_page": "478", "last_page": "482", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 N.C. App. 478" } ], "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": "570 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9250668 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "509" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185", "parenthetical": "\"[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest has been denied, the defendant is entitled to appellate review as a matter of right when he has entered a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge in the superior court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573354 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79", "parenthetical": "\"[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest has been denied, the defendant is entitled to appellate review as a matter of right when he has entered a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge in the superior court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E.2d 212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215", "parenthetical": "Clark, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549501 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395", "parenthetical": "Clark, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "699 S.E.2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "391 S.E.2d 159", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161" }, { "page": "163" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5306142 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" }, { "page": "539" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "687 S.E.2d 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 426, "char_count": 7922, "ocr_confidence": 0.735, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08, "percentile": 0.30033430520466636 }, "sha256": "a7b0792fc03760748de9dab549a64fa76af3dc4cb23ffdd03276a2b12a575e24", "simhash": "1:b45956ca47bf9e66", "word_count": 1272 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:51:45.819483+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER, Robert C. and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH LEONARDO SHROPSHIRE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEPHENS, Judge.\nOn 26 April 2004, Defendant Keith Leonardo Shropshire (\u201cShropshire\u201d) was indicted on one count of first-degree rape and one count of statutory rape. At the 19 April 2010 Criminal Session of Mecklenburg County Superior Court, the Honorable Christopher M. Collier presiding, pursuant to a plea agreement, Shropshire pled guilty to attempted first-degree rape and attempted statutory rape in exchange for the State\u2019s agreement that \u201csentencing will be in the mitigated range at the court\u2019s discretion\u201d and that \u201cthe court will determine whether the sentences will be served concurrently or consecutively.\u201d After conducting a plea colloquy with Shropshire, in which the court questioned Shropshire about his understanding and acceptance of the plea, the trial court accepted Shropshire\u2019s plea and sentenced him to consecutive sentences of 151 to 191 months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction. After the court pronounced Shropshire\u2019s sentence, the following exchange took place:\n[SHROPSHIRE]: I didn\u2019t understand, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: 151 minimum to 191 minimum [sic] plus the same thing.\n[SHROPSHIRE]: Your Honor \u2014\nTHE COURT: Take him out.\n[SHROPSHIRE]: I appeal this on the grounds my constitutional rights were violated. I appeal.\nTHE COURT: [Defense counsel], if you\u2019ll take a couple minutes to explain with [Shropshire] the limited grounds for appeal. If he alleges grounds that are allowed to be appealed to the guilty plea I will allow him to plea [sic].\n[SHOPRSHIRE]: I would also like to reject my plea.\nTHE COURT: That\u2019s a motion to withdraw your plea, is that what that is?\n[SHROPSHIRE]: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Motion denied. Take him out.\nThereupon, Shropshire gave notice of appeal.\nOn appeal, Shropshire argues that the trial court erred by \u201csummarily den[ying] [his] motion to withdraw his plea after sentencingf.]\u201d Citing Dickens, 299 N.C. at 84, 261 S.E.2d at 188, Shropshire contends that it was error for the trial court to fail to \u201c \u2018patiently and fairly\u2019 consider [Shropshire\u2019s] motion to determine whether it [had] any merit.\u201d We are unpersuaded by Shropshire\u2019s argument.\n\u201cA post-sentencing motion to withdraw a plea is a motion for appropriate relief.\u201d State v. Salvetti, - N.C. App. -, -, 687 S.E.2d 698, 703 (citing State v. Handy, 326 N.C. 532, 536, 391 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1990)), disc. review denied, appeal dismissed, 364 N.C. 246, 699 S.E.2d 919 (2010). \u201cAny party is entitled to a hearing on questions of law or fact arising from [such a motion] . . . unless the court determines that the motion is without merit.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1420(c)(l) (2009). As held by our Supreme Court in Dickens, \u201cin most cases reference to the verbatim record of the guilty plea proceedings will conclusively resolve all questions of fact raised by a defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw a plea of guilty and will permit a trial judge to dispose of such motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.\u201d Id. at 84, 261 S.E.2d at 188. Accordingly, \u201c[e]videntiary hearings are required in [such] post-conviction proceedings only when necessary to resolve questions of fact.\u201d Id.\nIn this case, Shropshire presented no questions of fact that needed to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing. Shropshire\u2019s statement that he didn\u2019t understand the trial court\u2019s decision to run the sentences consecutively did not raise any factual issue where Shropshire had already stated that he accepted and understood the plea agreement and its term that \u201cthe court will determine whether the sentences will be served concurrently or consecutively.\u201d Furthermore, Shropshire fails to raise any questions of fact on appeal. Instead, he simply quotes State v. Dickens, 41 N.C. App. 388, 395, 255 S.E.2d 212, 215 (1979) (Clark, J., dissenting), rev\u2019d, Dickens, 299 N.C. 76, 261 S.E.2d 183, and argues that, \u201cregardless of whether an evidentiary hearing would have been required, \u2018the importance of protecting the innocent and insuring that guilty pleas are a product of free and intelligent choice requires that such claims be patiently and fairly considered by the courts.\u2019 \u201d Here, however, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Shropshire\u2019s guilty plea was not the product of free and intelligent choice. It appears from the transcript that Shropshire\u2019s only reason for moving to withdraw his plea was his dissatisfaction with his sentence. Further, based on the trial court\u2019s expressed willingness to allow Shropshire to confer with defense counsel about the propriety of his motion, it appears the trial court did not deny Shropshire\u2019s motion the fair consideration it was due. Therefore, we conclude that, under the circumstances, the trial court\u2019s denial of Shropshire\u2019s motion without a hearing was not error.\nWe further note that where a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea after he is sentenced consistent with his plea agreement, the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea only upon a showing of manifest injustice. State v. Russell, 153 N.C. App. 508, 509, 570 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2002). \u201cFactors to be considered in determining the existence of manifest injustice include whether: [defendant was represented by competent counsel; [defendant is asserting innocence; and [defendant's plea was made knowingly and voluntarily or was the result of misunderstanding, haste, coercion, or confusion.\u201d Id. (citing Handy, 326 N.C. at 539, 391 S.E.2d at 163). In this case, none of the factors listed above were present. On the contrary, Shropshire was represented by competent counsel, Shropshire admitted his guilt to the court, Shropshire averred that he made the plea knowingly and voluntarily, and Shopshire admitted that he fully understood the plea agreement and that he accepted the' arrangement. Accordingly, we conclude that Shropshire was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and that the trial court did not err in denying Shropshire\u2019s motion to do so.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudges HUNTER, Robert C. and ERVIN concur.\n. Shropshire consented to a mistrial in his first trial on these charges in February 2009.\n. Although Shropshire pled guilty in the trial court, Shropshire may properly appeal to this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(e) (2009) (\u201c[E]xcept when a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest has been denied, the defendant is not entitled to appellate review as a matter of right when he has entered a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge in the superior court.\u201d) and State v. Dickens, 299 N.C. 76, 79, 261 S.E.2d 183, 185 (1980) (\u201c[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest has been denied, the defendant is entitled to appellate review as a matter of right when he has entered a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge in the superior court.\u201d).", "type": "majority", "author": "STEPHENS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General M. Elizabeth Guzman, for the State.", "Appellate Defendant Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defenders Mary J. Cook and Kristen L. Todd, for Defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH LEONARDO SHROPSHIRE\nNo. COA10-1113\n(Filed 15 March 2011)\nCriminal Law\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 motion to withdraw plea summarily denied \u2014 no error\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree rape and statutory rape case by summarily denying defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. Defendant presented no questions of fact that needed to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, nothing in the record indicated that defendant\u2019s plea was not the product of a free and a intelligent choice, and the trial court expressed willingness to allow defendant to confer with defense counsel about the propriety of his motion. Furthermore, defendant was not entitled to -withdraw his guilty plea as he failed to show manifest injustice.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgments entered 19 April 2010 by Judge Christopher M. Collier in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 February 2011.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General M. Elizabeth Guzman, for the State.\nAppellate Defendant Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defenders Mary J. Cook and Kristen L. Todd, for Defendant." }, "file_name": "0478-01", "first_page_order": 486, "last_page_order": 490 }