{
  "id": 12172632,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. SHANEEQUAH NICOLE WALL, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wall",
  "decision_date": "2014-07-15",
  "docket_number": "No. COA14-176",
  "first_page": "196",
  "last_page": "200",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "235 N.C. App. 196"
    }
  ],
  "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": "300 S.E.2d 257",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "259"
        },
        {
          "page": "259"
        },
        {
          "page": "259"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519884
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "158"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0155-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 446,
    "char_count": 10125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.699,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38010053868005433
    },
    "sha256": "235c90c8c372557b4b193d50d5213f1ff27c27c263006739ff81d8cccf81577c",
    "simhash": "1:891cf6a185f74ffb",
    "word_count": 1640
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:11.341648+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and HUNTER, Robert C., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. SHANEEQUAH NICOLE WALL, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nOn 9 October 2013, a jury found Shaneequah Nicole Wall (\u201cdefendant\u201d) guilty of resisting a public officer. The trial court sentenced defendant to 45 days imprisonment, suspended, and placed her on supervised probation for 12 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. We hold that the Richmond County Superior Court lacked legal authority and, therefore, was without subject matter jurisdiction to try defendant on the offense alleged in the misdemeanor statement of charges when defendant was appealing from the judgment entered in district court after a conviction on a magistrate\u2019s order. We vacate defendant\u2019s conviction.\nI. BACKGROUND\nBased on the record evidence, which is conflicting on occasion, the facts of this case are as follows: On 18 September 2012, the Richmond County Sheriff\u2019s Office received a warrant for the arrest of William Wall, Sr. (\u201cWall Sr.\u201d) and an emergency child custody order for William Wall, Jr. (\u201cJr.\u201d), Wall Sr.\u2019s minor child, from the Osceola County Sheriffs Office in Florida. The child custody order was based on allegations of abuse or neglect and indicated that Richmond County was to take immediate custody of Jr., who was 20 months old. The custody order stated that Jr. could be found at 127 Logan Park in the city of Rockingham.\nDeputy Cory Jones (\u201cDeputy Jones\u201d) with the Richmond County Sheriff\u2019s Office was dispatched to the Logan Park address. As Deputy Jones entered Wall Sr.\u2019s neighborhood, he spotted Wall Sr. driving out. Deputy Jones stopped the truck and arrested Wall Sr. Deputy Jones informed passenger Felicia Wall, (Wall Sr.\u2019s daughter) of the arrest warrant for her father and of the child custody order for Jr. Felicia Wall drove Wall Sr.\u2019s truck to the Logan Park residence as Deputy Jones followed in a marked patrol car.\nWhen he arrived at the residence, Deputy Jones stood in the doorway and identified himself as a sheriff\u2019s deputy to Rosa Wall, Jr.\u2019s paternal grandmother and the apparent home owner. Deputy Jones informed Rosa Wall of the warrant and of the child custody order. Meg Demayo with the Richmond County Department of Social Services and Lieutenant Mike Bums (\u201cLieutenant Bums\u201d) met Deputy Jones at the residence. Defendant and Felicia Wall were present as well.\nLieutenant Bums testified that there were two minor children in the home. Lieutenant Bums asked Rosa Wall to identify Jr. Initially, Rosa Wall said that Jr. was not in the residence. However, she later confirmed that Jr. was in the residence, that he was \u201cfine,\u201d and that he was \u201cnot going nowhere.\u201d The record discloses that defendant, Felicia Wall, and Rosa Wall each refused to identify Jr. when asked to do so by law enforcement. Pointing to the child later identified as Jr., Deputy Jones specifically asked defendant; \u201c\"Whose baby is that?\u201d Defendant responded; \u201cHis mama is on the way.\u201d Lieutenant Bums warned: \u201cIf I find out that either of these two children in this home is in fact the child William Wall, Jr. that I\u2019m looking for, everybody in the residence will go to jail.\u201d After approximately two hours, Florida authorities transmitted a photograph of Jr. and the officers were able to identify him and place him in DSS custody.\nThe video footage illustrates, and Deputy Jones admits, that the officers never presented the emergency child custody order to defendant, Rosa Wall, or Felicia Wall. Lieutenant Bums testified that he had the emergency child custody order in his possession; however, he stated that he did not feel it was necessary to show it until one of the women affirmatively identified Jr.\nDefendant, Felicia Wall, and Rosa Wall were each arrested based on their refusal to identify Jr. Lieutenant Bums told the women; \u201cWe\u2019re arresting you for resisting\u2014for lying to us.\u201d On 6 December 2012, a magistrate\u2019s order charged defendant with resisting a public officer, \u00a7 14-223, and giving fictitious information to a public officer, \u00a7 20-29, for the 18 September 2012 incident. Defendant was tried on the magistrate\u2019s order and found guilty of resisting a public officer on 6 December 2013. The fictitious information charge was dismissed.\nDefendant appealed the district court judgment to Richmond County Superior Court for a trial de novo. On 2 July 2013, the State filed a misdemeanor statement of charges in superior court. Defendant was tried on the misdemeanor statement of charges and found guilty of resisting a public officer on 9 October 2013. Defendant now appeals.\nII. ANALYSIS\nDefendant argues that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try her on a misdemeanor statement of charges filed in superior court for an alleged 18 September 2012 violation of \u00a7 14-223 because defendant was tried and convicted on a magistrate\u2019s order in district court. We agree.\nA \u201cstatement of charges\u201d is governed, in relevant part, by the following provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-922 (2013):\n(d) Statement of Charges upon Determination of Prosecutor.-The prosecutor may file a statement of charges upon his own determination at any time prior to arraignment in the district court. It may charge the same offenses as the citation, criminal summons, warrant for arrest, or magistrate\u2019s order or additional or different offenses.\n(e) Objection to Sufficiency of Criminal Summons; Warrant for Arrest or Magistrate\u2019s Order as Pleading.-If the defendant by appropriate motion objects to the sufficiency of a criminal summons, warrant for arrest, or magistrate\u2019s order as a pleading, at the time of or after arraignment in the district court or upon trial de novo in the superior court, and the judge rules that the pleading is insufficient, the prosecutor may file a statement of charges, but a statement of charges filed pursuant to this authorization may not change the nature of the offense.\n(f) Amendment of Pleadings prior to or after Final Judgment.-A statement of charges, criminal summons, warrant for arrest, citation, or magistrate\u2019s order may be amended at any time prior to or after final judgment when the amendment does not change the nature of the offense charged.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-922 (2013).\nThe crux of defendant\u2019s issue is that the State\u2019s filing of the misdemeanor statement of charges was untimely and therefore impermissible. We agree. Subsection (d) of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-922 clearly provides that \u201c[t]he prosecutor may file a statement of charges upon his own determination at any time prior to arraignment in the district court\" After arraignment, the State may only file a statement of charges when the defendant (1) objects to the sufficiency of the criminal summons and (2) the trial court rules that the pleading is in fact insufficient. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-922(e). While subsection (f) allows the charging instrument to be amended prior to or after a final judgment is entered, this does not grant the State authority to change the form of the charging instrument; i.e., the State cannot \u201camend\u201d a magistrate\u2019s order by filing a misdemeanor statement of charges. Doing so would change the \u00f1atee of the original pleading entirely. Accordingly, the State has a limited window in which it may file a statement of charges on its own accord, and that is prior to arraignment.\nTo further illustrate this point, we look to State v. Killian, 61 N.C. App. 155, 158, 300 S.E.2d 257, 259 (1983), a case in which the State similarly filed a statement of charges in superior court after the defendant was tried and convicted on a warrant in district court. On appeal, this Court vacated the superior court\u2019s judgment for want of jurisdiction on the basis that the statement of charges alleged a separate statutory violation than that charged in the warrant. Id. at 158, 300 S.E.2d at 259. However, assuming arguendo that the statement of charges did not change the nature of the offense charged, this Court opined that the State\u2019s filing in superior court was nevertheless \u201cuntimely and thereby without legal authorization.\u201d Id. at 157, 300 S.E.2d at 259. We noted that the record contained no motion by the defendant objecting to the sufficiency of the original warrant and held, \u201c[t]he statement of charges was filed by the prosecutor \u2018upon his own determination\u2019; and that could only be done \u2018prior to arraignment in the district court,\u2019 not upon trial de novo on appeal to superior court.\u201d Id.\nHere, the State did not file the statement of charges prior to defendant\u2019s arraignment in district court. As in Killian, the record similarly discloses that no motion was made by defendant objecting to the sufficiency of the magistrate\u2019s order. Thus, the trial court was not afforded the opportunity to rule on whether the magistrate\u2019s order was sufficient. Nonetheless, the prosecutor \u201cupon his own determination\u201d filed the misdemeanor statement of charges seven months after defendant appealed the district court judgment to superior court. This filing was \u201cuntimely and thereby without legal authorization.\u201d Thus, the superior court had no jurisdiction to try defendant for the new offense alleged in the statement of charges. Defendant\u2019s conviction must be vacated. Defendant\u2019s remaining issues on appeal are moot.\nVacated.\nJudges McGEE and HUNTER, Robert C., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ELMORE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Senior Deputy Attorney General Robert T. Hargett, for the State.",
      "Michelle FormyDuval Lynch, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. SHANEEQUAH NICOLE WALL, Defendant\nNo. COA14-176\nFiled 15 July 2014\nJurisdiction\u2014subject matter jurisdiction\u2014appeal from judgment entered in district court\u2014conviction on magistrate\u2019s order\u2014 no legal authority in superior court\nThe superior court lacked legal authority and, therefore, was without subject matter jurisdiction to try defendant on the offense alleged in the misdemeanor statement of charges when defendant was appealing from the judgment entered in district court after a conviction on a magistrate\u2019s order. Defendant\u2019s conviction for resisting a public officer was vacated.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 October 2013 by Judge Mark E. Klass in Richmond County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 June 2014.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Senior Deputy Attorney General Robert T. Hargett, for the State.\nMichelle FormyDuval Lynch, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0196-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 210
}