{
  "id": 8552572,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH O. GILBERT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gilbert",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7610SC168",
  "first_page": "130",
  "last_page": "132",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 130"
    }
  ],
  "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": "188 S.E. 2d 638",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569759
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0464-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3720,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.638,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.603353709038635
    },
    "sha256": "ef31b3397b9ddeb4a69348df3d6e79bee911f68d60dadb7f08f55cfb950af4fc",
    "simhash": "1:9617e7b3ceb91d86",
    "word_count": 628
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH O. GILBERT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nThe disposition of this appeal is governed by the principles declared in State v. Harrell, 279 N.C. 464, 188 S.E. 2d 638 (1971).\nAs in Harrell, it may be that the district court judge in the present case only intended to declare the City Code unconstitutional as applied. However, he went further and found defendant \u201cnot guilty.\u201d The district court had exclusive original jurisdiction of the offense for which defendant was arraigned, and the judge had jurisdiction to enter final judgment. The denomination of his verdict as a \u201cspecial verdict\u201d of not guilty does not change its real character as a general verdict of not guilty. If the district court judge had intended to rely upon his conclusion that the City Code was unconstitutional as applied, he should have so stated and dismissed the action. General Statute 15-179(6) would then have permitted the State to appeal. However, the State had no right of appeal from a verdict of not guilty.\nSince the defendant was found not guilty in the district court, the attempted appeal by the State brought nothing to the superior court. Since the superior court did not acquire jurisdiction, the proceedings in the superior court are a nullity. Likewise, this Court has acquired no jurisdiction by the State\u2019s attempted appeal from the superior court.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Britt and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey and Associate Attorney Cynthia J. Zeliff, for the State.",
      "L. Philip Covington for the defendant.",
      "Walter L. Horton, Jr., on the amicus curiae brief of the City of Raleigh."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH O. GILBERT\nNo. 7610SC168\n(Filed 7 July 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 149 \u2014 not guilty verdict \u2014 no right of State to appeal\nWhere defendant parked in a \u201cno parking\u201d zone in the city, failed to pay a penalty of $1.00 for such violation, and the district court entered a special verdict of not guilty on behalf of defendant, the State had no right of appeal.\nAppeal by the State from Alvis, Judge. Judgment entered 15 January 1976 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 May 1976.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with violating Chapter 21 of the Code of the City of Raleigh by parking his Fiat automobile in a \u201cno parking\u201d zone on Avent Ferry Road in the City of Raleigh. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, defendant received a \u201cParking Citation\u201d ticket. The citation notified defendant that if he did not pay a penalty within 48 hours, a warrant would be issued. Section 21-12 (c) of the City Code provides a penalty of $1.00 for the violation with which defendant was charged. Section 21-12 (g) provides that penalties paid for such parking violations shall be paid into the general fund of the City. Defendant has admitted that he parked in the prohibited area.\nDefendant did not pay the penalty provided by the City Code, and the warrant upon which defendant was arraigned in district court was issued. In district court defendant challenged the constitutionality of the procedure of initiating criminal prosecutions for only those persons who do not pay to the City the penalty provided by the City Code. The district court judge concluded that \u201cthe enforcement of the parking laws in the City of Raleigh is unconstitutional as presently applied.\u201d The district court judge then decreed as follows:\n\u201cNow, Therefore, it is hereby Ordered Adjudged and Decreed that a Special Verdict of \u2018not guilty\u2019 be entered on behalf of defendant in this cause.\u201d\nThe State appealed to superior court. Upon appeal, Judge Alvis heard the case upon the record of the district court and affirmed the judgment of the district court.\nThe State appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey and Associate Attorney Cynthia J. Zeliff, for the State.\nL. Philip Covington for the defendant.\nWalter L. Horton, Jr., on the amicus curiae brief of the City of Raleigh."
  },
  "file_name": "0130-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 160
}