{ "id": 8520562, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GILBERT BLANDIN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blandin", "decision_date": "1983-01-04", "docket_number": "No. 822SC567", "first_page": "271", "last_page": "273", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 N.C. App. 271" } ], "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": "289 S.E. 2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569882 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S.E. 2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527386 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0393-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 213, "char_count": 3608, "ocr_confidence": 0.808, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.665651525889828e-08, "percentile": 0.40590822090399864 }, "sha256": "7cf8f33b42daad35a55e63f8651ef2c30dbcae927831bcb6ac5ae1c4486fab70", "simhash": "1:03e7613030829ad7", "word_count": 632 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:46.639047+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WEBB and BECTON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GILBERT BLANDIN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe State purports to appeal an order of the Superior Court allowing the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress certain evidence seized pursuant to the search of the defendant\u2019s person. The record on appeal was docketed in this court on 7 June 1982. On 11 June 1982 the defendant filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal for that the State had not filed the certificate mandated by G.S. \u00a7 15A-979(c) that the appeal was not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence suppressed is essential to the case.\nOn 18 June 1982 the State filed a motion in this court to add the certificate required by G.S. \u00a7 15A-979(c) to the record. On 21 June 1982 the State filed a response to the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss arguing \u201cthat there are no specific time limitations on the prosecutor in filing a certificate under G.S. 15A-979(c) and that the certificate can be deemed to be timely as long as the Record on Appeal ultimately reflects the certification.\u201d In State v. McDonald, 55 N.C. App. 393, 285 S.E. 2d 282 (1982), filed 5 January 1982, this court held that the State had no right to appeal an order granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence where the record failed to show that the prosecutor certified to the judge who granted the motion that the appeal was not being taken for the purpose of delay and that the suppressed evidence was essential to the case as required by G.S. \u00a7 15A-979(c).\nIn State v. Turner, 305 N.C. 356, 359, 289 S.E. 2d 368, 370 (1982), filed 30 March 1982, Justice Britt speaking for our Supreme Court said: \u201cWe hold that the certificate envisioned by G.S. 15A-979(c) is timely filed if it is filed prior to the certification of the record on appeal to the appellate division. In the case at hand, since the certificate was served as a part of the record on appeal on 16 February 1981, and the record was certified by the clerk of superior court to the appellate division on 24 April 1981, the certificate was timely served.\u201d\nIn the present case, the certificate required by the statute has not yet been made a part of the record. Obviously, it was not filed before the record was certified by the Clerk of the Superior Court. Clearly the obvious purposes of the certificate discussed in Turner have not been satisfied.\nIn his brief the defendant argues: \u201cTo give the State the right to file the certificate after the case has already been docketed in the appellate court would be to reduce the requirement of the certificate to a nullity. If G.S. \u00a7 15A-979(c) means anything at all, it means that the Court is bound to dismiss this appeal.\u201d\nWe find the defendant\u2019s argument persuasive and the appeal is\nDismissed.\nJudges WEBB and BECTON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General W. A. Raney, Jr. for the State, appellant.", "Jeffrey S. Miller for the defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GILBERT BLANDIN\nNo. 822SC567\n(Filed 4 January 1983)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 149\u2014 order suppressing evidence \u2014appeal by State \u2014 prosecutor\u2019s certificate not timely filed \u2014 dismissal of appeal\nThe State\u2019s appeal from a pretrial order allowing a motion to suppress seized evidence is dismissed where the prosecutor\u2019s certificate required by G.S. 15A~979(c) stating that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the suppressed evidence is essential to the case was not filed by the State prior to the certification of the record on appeal to the appellate division.\nAppeal by the State from Small, Judge. Order entered 18 March 1982 in Superior Court, BEAUFORT County. Heard in Court of Appeals 7 December 1982.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General W. A. Raney, Jr. for the State, appellant.\nJeffrey S. Miller for the defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0271-01", "first_page_order": 303, "last_page_order": 305 }